When I read that earlier comment, I don't see "semi-autistic semantics" being used as an insult. I think it's actually quite relevant given the context, and appropriate given the argument that was being made.
Defining characteristics of autism (that is, the medical condition) include a deficiency when it comes to social understanding, a tendency to have an extreme focus on minor details, and an inherent inability to grasp the "big picture".
The earlier comment describes how certain attempts to justify what happened in a particular situation end up exhibiting similar traits. These justifications do not correspond well at all with how society at large interprets the situation, and they have a very narrow focus that ignores the larger social aspects of the situation.
I could see it being insulting if the earlier comment labelled somebody as being autistic in an attempt to discredit them, but in this case it's describing certain traits that correlate quite well with the medical condition and how those who suffer from said condition often behave.
If a person who suffers from a poor ability to understand the society around them, and who also tends to be unrelentingly focused on minute details, can be diagnosed as having "autism", then I think a similar diagnosis is perfectly reasonable when applied to an argument or justification that exhibits the same traits. It's a perfectly legitimate way of describing such arguments/justifications that don't mesh well with the social reality.
Putting your nonsense accusations and political correctness hypersensitivity aside, can you please provide us with a better single-word term that precisely describes something (such as an argument or a justification) that's so narrowly and uncompromisingly focused so as to totally miss how society at large will interpret it?
And, please, be serious about this. Suggesting words like "intolerant" or "wrong" wouldn't be helpful, obviously. If you have such a problem with the term used previously, provide us with one that offers just as much meaning, but isn't "offensive" to people who are overly sensitive.
For this example: autistic misses the mark because people with autism will be described as being too literal. Hence books like "It's Raining Cats and Dogs: An Autism Spectrum Guide to the Confusing World of Idioms, Metaphors and Everyday Expressions"
> The earlier comment describes how certain attempts to justify what happened in a particular situation end up exhibiting similar traits.
Here's what that comment said: "A non-technical person will not consider that any different. After all, said automated process was created and deployed by Google engineers, so it's still Google engineers browsing through people's private photos."
But this thread is full of people saying that comparing hashes is not anything like engineers looking at your photos, and most of those people do not have ASDisorders, thus claiming only a person with autism would claim such is wrong.
> Putting your nonsense accusations and political correctness hypersensitivity aside
Like I said, please put your political correctness to the side so that we can discuss this like adults.
What is an alternative term that conveys the exact same concept that was discussed earlier, but without being deemed "offensive" by people who are particularly sensitive?
If you have a problem with the perfectly legitimate term that was being used earlier, then the constructive thing to do would be for you to provide an equivalent or better alternative.
Defining characteristics of autism (that is, the medical condition) include a deficiency when it comes to social understanding, a tendency to have an extreme focus on minor details, and an inherent inability to grasp the "big picture".
The earlier comment describes how certain attempts to justify what happened in a particular situation end up exhibiting similar traits. These justifications do not correspond well at all with how society at large interprets the situation, and they have a very narrow focus that ignores the larger social aspects of the situation.
I could see it being insulting if the earlier comment labelled somebody as being autistic in an attempt to discredit them, but in this case it's describing certain traits that correlate quite well with the medical condition and how those who suffer from said condition often behave.
If a person who suffers from a poor ability to understand the society around them, and who also tends to be unrelentingly focused on minute details, can be diagnosed as having "autism", then I think a similar diagnosis is perfectly reasonable when applied to an argument or justification that exhibits the same traits. It's a perfectly legitimate way of describing such arguments/justifications that don't mesh well with the social reality.