I do think- and hear me out here, because I think people are predisposed to think of those sort of take as inherently justifying weird shit because people love to read into what ND people say. But it is definitely a result of us ND people reading others online very literally. It is difficult for us to tell the difference between a post that is ironic or unironic, hyperbole or literal, sober or joking, especially if we are familiar with the degree to which reality exceeds parody. I genuinely believe the hatred of this kind of post is rooted primarily in a kind of weird synthesis of something weird and cringe (ableism and an expectation of everyone acting the same) with something usually good (a desire to ensure a complete lack of reactionaries in our spaces). We (the ND) are interpreting a comment or general Vibe incorrectly because of our extremely different communication styles, and when it comes time for the majority/advantaged group (the NT) to clarify what they meant they instead interpret our questions as the prods or statements they would have intended if they said the same thing.

We definitely need a Dictatorship of the Neurodivergent on this site, even if we already have one it’s not enough. Yeah, if you read things literally it gets a little harder to detect a bad faith chud trying to wreck the site, but there are still really obvious tells. A change to a more explicitly communicative general conversation policy would be a huge improvement. I wish tone tags were built into every comment. ( someone going “god I want to kill Kopmala voters /pissed off” is way easier to relate to than our (some ND people’s) default assumption of “god I want to kill Kopmala voters /genuine /sober”)

Yes, this is not an excuse for any sort of problematic behavior. But the assumption that we are engaging with it in the first place with posts like this is a heavily neurotypical one. And I do take issue to @autismdragon’s reference to grass touching because that exact phrasing is usually used to dismiss us, though I do not think they considered this when they wrote the post.

When the NT urge to read nonexistent context into neurodivergent conversation crosses with our very real and reasonable experiences with reactionaries abusing said context to smuggle in their reactionary sentiments without saying anything explicit, it becomes very, very ugly, and I think it usually ends up with people both assuming neurodivergent people intend to spread reactionary rhetoric and becoming unreasonably angry at them, while also having neurodivergent people accidentally spread it because neurotypical people can share invisible context with each other even through the medium of someone specifically not trying to add any. The only real way to fix this is to embrace more and more explicit communication (and to embrace theory that makes the smuggled, implicit reactionary sentiments explicit through the revealing of it’s internal mechanisms)