Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on the context. This is atypical behavior for HN.
> Nobody was calling you out; rather, Dan made a particular point that the author appreciated being raised.
You don’t actually know this. It’s one viewpoint on what was happening.
Then we can be overly confident together, without acrimony, in our readings of somebody else's words.
Note that Dan acknowledged that the author might be being defensive.
I totally get that. Not to belabor the point, but I think the original author probably feels much the same about some of the other criticisms being shared on HN.
It's hard to engage with a whole work when there are particular highlights that hit you the wrong way. I'd like to hope that a shared understanding of what "call out" might mean will help everybody move past it to appreciate the rest of what you're trying to share.
> The impact however was the opposite, since it just seemed like an attempt to contradict my perceptions.
I'll take that on board; I'm still on my own personal journey of relating to people effectively.
Re: engaging with the whole work. The piece as a whole doesn’t contain anything I haven’t seen before in autistic advocacy. I agree with a bunch of it, although it’s hard to get a lot of people to understand the double empathy problem.
So, the parts that are going to be critiqued are the parts that have conceptual issues - e.g. the two cultures problem idea, which is not universally shared amongst autistic people.
The phrase "call out" isn't a universal dog whistle for bogey men to come drag you to the gulag for wrongthink. Your reaction to it has been exhausting.
Once again you are completely out of line with the site guidelines. There is a reason your comments are getting flagged. Please take a look at them. This isn’t twitter. HN has its own culture which you seem not to understand.
I thought your comment was quite reasonable, but as soon as they jumped in to characterize it as a ‘call out’, it became something else. If they want to be defensive in a response to me, I can respond to that. If a group of people get together to ‘call something out’, that’s very different. We can move past it, but we can’t ignore the behavior, which is not typical for HN.
As for the use of the phrase “Ambassador of that culture”, I do still have strong objections to it. It comes way earlier in the document than the later qualification, and I am not of the view that the equivocation renders it moot.
The entire piece is about taking care with how one communicates about autism, and who gets to represent it. It’s not surprising that the way it does so is under scrutiny.
The word ambassador isn’t the only word in that phrase. The word ‘culture’ is also there. There is certainly an implication of two cultures in play.
The later part talks about a diversity of autistic voices of which the author is only one, but that doesn’t eliminate the ‘two cultures’ idea that has already been introduced.
The two cultures idea is definitely not universally held by autistic people. I suspect that this is at the root of a lot of the reactions.