Thats just it though, a lot of the time there are reasons.

A lot of those reasons aren't immediately apparent, Some of those reasons might never be understood even by the person themselves.

I also want to make clear that a "reason" isn't always an excuse it's just the preceding experiences/events that lead up to an outcome.

Someone with a non--standard set of tools for reading context has a non-standard chance of seeing and/or understanding those reasons. Because the outward facing signs of that context are geared towards a typical form of communication that is commonly less accessible by the neurodivergent.

I say "non-standard chance of understanding" on purpose, because it's not always a case of better or worse and can vary over time, with skill acquisition and learning.

There are neurodivergent people who are very attuned to specific types of tells that wouldn't typically be seen. They might not understand the relevance or context, but they can notice a difference.

There are people who acquire a learned (as opposed to natural) form of this type of assessment of others.

That skill(or skills) can be it's own set of problems, but it's possible.

I don't disagree with the post you are responding to, almost all of that is reasonable.

Your overall argument would be more convincing if it wasn't you doing the exact same thing you are complaining about.

As for specifics , the "Just a tool" argument is meh, not all tools are equal in potential benefit and harm.

Asbestos (while it is a material) was a "tool" used to insulate from heat.

Was it good at that, sure, it probably saved many lives, was it also harmful as fuck in the medium to long term, yes it was.

It can be a useful tool and also be a detriment, those things aren't mutually exclusive.

The danger of a tool can also be mitigated with adequate safeguards that come from experience gained over time.

The argument then becomes risk vs reward, which is an entirely different conversation.

It is indeed the "no ethical consumerism" argument and as I said it's an interesting conversation to have.

I wasn’t arguing against your general premise. I specifically called out the lack of flexibility in your statement and what that implied to me.

That isn’t the case for me though. It isn’t for you either. It isn’t the case for the vast majority of people.

Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.

And this is the exact kind of privilege and/or lack of imagination I was talking about.

It wasn’t about word choice as much it as what that word choice implied.

It suggests you don't understand how limited the choices can be under poverty, or how widespread it is.

I wasn’t positing it as a gotcha, I am "being real" when i say there are very real circumstances (for a non-trivial amount of people) that don't adhere to your ideal.

Assuming Walmart was your example because it's what you know and not because America is the only place that exists, physical distance is far from the only factor.

Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that's not even close to a guarantee you'd be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.

The easy example is literal starvation, where it's not possible to secure enough food of any kind, let alone the kind that adheres to your premise.

This isn't an obscure thing from 300 years ago, this is a reality, today.

I wasn’t saying you were wrong, i was saying your argument possibly comes from a position of privilege and if you think this is a 300 year ago problem, I was correct.

edit: clean up

In modern society, almost all personal choices have victims, it's all connected.

If you want to argue the degree of separation between the choice and the victim that's an interesting conversation to have.

If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it.

If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context), that implies a lack of imagination, mental flexibility and a level of privilege that taints anything else you might say with the idea :

"If they can't think of a single scenario where that statement doesn't apply, how much thinking are they really putting in to the rest of what they say"

For some, eating meat is life and death, through no fault of their own.

Non standard actions in response to stressors is a known possibility with some neurodivergent diagnoses.

Calm responses to subjectively large issues or dangerous situations as well as subjectively oversized reactions to seemingly normal stimuli (sound being a common example).

Easy answer is , they don't

Though that's just the one admitting to it.

A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there's likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it'd be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.

The UK isn't the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.

In very limited situations the police can, but it's not the norm.

Don't get me wrong, ACAB, they just don't generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an 'illegal' protest.

That's like saying that if you don't walk out of the gym bursting out of your shirt you should stop lifting weights.

Not everything is immediate.

The differences here are that ORM and web frameworks weren't actively making the job harder and the sheer surface area of the problem.

If you fuck up with a framework or an ORM, it generally just fails to work, the magic internals might not be super helpful with their error messages, but such is the nature of the tradeoffs.

If you fuck up with an LLM you get something that generally compiles and looks like it should work, that's much more of a problem for both you and anyone who then needs to go trawling through, looking for the issues.

it's to circumvent systems that flag reposts.

I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"

Each to their own, I too have pre-blocked on occasion.

I probably wouldn't hold myself responsible for angry internet people, if I'm engaging in good faith and they get angry that's not on me, trolls gonna troll, but again each to their own.