“I didn’t like it” is an opinion. “Vim is dumb because I can’t think of a reason people would like it, and everyone who uses it is an elitist asshole” is ignorance.

Cigarettes, pipes, hookah and lots of other forms of smoking were and are popular as a social lubricant, if that’s what you’re getting at

Other guy: rape is bad

This guy: many people don’t really understand what rape is

You: ah yes these are the same

Lol

Exactly what did I say to give you the impression that any disorder caused abusive behavior?

I said they are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive - in other words, no direct causal relationship. Ever heard the phrase “correlation is not causation”? It just so happens that NPD correlates with abusive behavior much more than ASD does, and that isn’t according to any “sob stories” I heard - it’s from the DSM-5 which I linked to and which I’m now guessing you probably didn’t read.

Anyway, I’m done with this. Have fun with your black-and-white life.

Holy shit man, it’s not that hard. You don’t need a mental disorder to be classified as an abuser. I said in my last comment that there are other ways to become an abuser, many of which are sociopolitical. You can have no mental disorders and grow up abused, and you are much more likely to continue the cycle than those who were not. You can be an alcoholic with routinely impaired judgement and become an abuser. You can simply be an asshole. There are any number of ways to be/become one without fitting the criteria of a mental disorder. The fact that some of the abusers you know happen to have autism is coincidental at best.

Also, I’m not sure what “politics” you’re talking about (I jest, I know exactly the “politics” you mean) when I literally cited the DSM-5 to you. Not that it’s relevant when half my point was that mental disorders and abusive tendencies are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive; but you keep insisting that a mental disorder must be the cause, so I did it anyway. If it has to be relevant, it would only be with regard to the specific way the abuse manifests, not whether it manifests in the first place.

It’s not magic, and it’s not rhetoric, it’s just science. If you’re convinced that I won’t convince you - fine, I’ll stop trying. Just know that I’m not trying to convince you of what you think I’m trying to convince you of. If you were confused by that, reread this comment.

I guess I am the abuse enabler for trying to put the blame on the abuser instead of an arbitrarily chosen mental disorder.

Did they conduct a full psychiatric evaluation on the father? Did they conclude that he only had autism? Any anger disorders that may have caused him to lash out more with more severity? Any personality disorders that caused a lack of empathy and an interest only in the self? Any intellectual disabilities that inhibited him from seeking better solutions (like wearing noise isolation muffs)? No? Because the father shot himself after being charged with child abuse? Because the case study was done on the child, after the fact, to study the effects of what was done to her, and not why those things were done?

You can conclude from the study that abuse is bad. With regard to the father, the effects of autism on abusive behavior is inconclusive at best. Yeah, it sucks that that happened to her. No one is saying “aw shucks, looks like the father didn’t have a definitive NPD diagnosis, I guess it wasn’t abuse then” because fucking obviously it was abuse and fucking obviously abuse is bad, you just don’t need a mental disorder to pin it on. There are other ways to become an abuser: generational trauma, neglect, and yes NPD.

On an entirely unrelated note, I caught my girlfriend cheating the other day, but I could not for the life of me figure out why, so I could only conclude that I was wrong and she never actually cheated on me in the first place 🤷🏽‍♂️

Lol, ok.

ASD

NPD

Those are the DSM-5 entries for ASD and NPD. I see no mention of empathy in the ASD entry, but an explicit mention for NPD. Individuals with ASD might occasionally appear to have no empathy, but only because they have trouble with social norms, contexts, and cues.

I’ll note that the NPD criteria also includes “interpersonal exploitative behavior” which I would interpret as manipulative/abusive.

Because autistic traits aren’t abusive traits? If someone is autistic it doesn’t mean they will be abusive. They aren’t mutually exclusive, but they can overlap.

Whereas narcissistic traits are abusive traits, so a narcissist will almost definitely be abusive. But these aren’t mutually inclusive with each other, so someone can be abusive without being a narcissist.

I don’t know your parents or your situation; if you say they were abusive, I believe you. But if you say they were abusive because of their autism, that is just plainly false. You don’t have to blame it on some mental disorder, diagnosed or not. You can just say they were abusive.

Ok.

❌ My parents were autists, therefore I was abused.

✅ My parents were narcissistic abusive assholes, therefore I was abused. (They were also autists, which may have altered the presentation of their abuse, but was not the root cause ✅✅)

❌ My parents were autists, therefore I was abused.

✅ My parents were narcissistic abusive assholes, therefore I was abused. (They were also autists, which may have altered the presentation of their abuse, but was not the root cause ✅✅)

I didn’t know this. I didn’t see any indication that OP knew this (or to the contrary). Maybe you should practice what you preach.

Fundamental attribution error

Uhh… elaborate please?

What do you call the human brain then, if not billions of “switches” as you call them that translate inputs (senses) into an output (intelligence/consciousness/efferent neural actions)?

It’s the result of billions of years of evolutionary trial and error to create a working structure of what we would call a neural net, which is trained on data (sensory experience) as the human matures.

Even early nervous systems were basic classification systems. Food, not food. Predator, not predator. The inputs were basic olfactory sense (or a more primitive chemosense probably) and outputs were basic motor functions (turn towards or away from signal).

The complexity of these organic neural networks (nervous systems) increased over time and we eventually got what we have today: human intelligence. Although there are arguably different types of intelligence, as it evolved among many different phylogenetic lines. Dolphins, elephants, dogs, and octopuses have all been demonstrated to have some form of intelligence. But given the information in the previous paragraph, one can say that they are all just more and more advanced pattern recognition systems, trained by natural selection.

The question is: where do you draw the line? If an organism with a photosensitive patch of cells on top of its head darts in a random direction when it detects sudden darkness (perhaps indicating a predator flying/swimming overhead, though not necessarily with 100% certainty), would you call that intelligence? What about a rabbit, who is instinctively programmed by natural selection to run when something near it moves? What about when it differentiates between something smaller or bigger than itself?

What about you? How will you react when you see a bear in front of you? Or when you’re in your house alone and you hear something that you shouldn’t? Will your evolutionary pattern recognition activate only then and put you in fight-or-flight? Or is everything you think and do a form of pattern recognition, a bunch of electrons manipulating a hundred billion switches to convert some input into a favorable output for you, the organism? Are you intelligent? Or just the product of a 4-billion year old organic learning system?

Modern LLMs are somewhere in between those primitive classification systems and the intelligence of humans today. They can perform word associations in a semantic higher dimensional space, encoding individual words as vectors and enabling the model to attribute a sort of meaning between two words. Comparing the encoding vectors in different ways gets you another word vector, yielding what could be called an association, or a scalar (like Euclidean or angular distance) which might encode closeness in meaning.

Now if intelligence requires understanding as you say, what degree of understanding of its environment (ecosystem for organisms, text for LLM. Different types of intelligence, paragraph 4) does an entity need for you to designate it as intelligent? What associations need it make? Categorizations of danger, not danger and food, not food? What is the difference between that and the Pavlovian responses of a dog? And what makes humans different, aside from a more complex neural structure that allows us to integrate orders of magnitude more information more efficiently?

Where do you draw the line?

Technically a vagina has six holes (assuming this guy is talking about the whole genital when he says vagina):

The urethra, where pee comes out

The vagina, where sex

Two paraurethral glands (Skene’s glands), which secrete lubricating mucous during arousal and also produce female ejaculate when squirting (it’s not piss!) - these glands are analogous to prostatic glands in males

Two greater vestibular glands (Bartholin glands, which are paravaginal), which also secrete lubricating fluid.

Although I would advise against putting anything in those last four (they are visible to the naked eye but still very small). Also not sure how he counted 5.