The corollary of not knowing when [non-neurotypicals are] offending people, is that they also don't know when they're receiving tolerance

* that people whose organs are harvested should receive some compensation in the way that other participants in the transaction do: https://web.archive.org/web/20240417004658/https://news.ycom...

After I complained enough people flagged the replies calling me a Nazi but before that they were the top ranked responses.

* I suggested that the franchise should be restricted and the majority of reactions were not considered and simply emotional outbursts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46291336

This is the nature of being different: most people don’t bother with the rider; the elephant suffices.

I can relate this very much, and I am "just" 100% blind. I believe what we are talking about is not "neurotypicals" vs "non-neurotypicals", it is really the way society treats anyone with a pertceived disability. We are, even though society tries to keep the mask on, outcasts, and we are regularily enough treated like that we learn on a deep level that we are just not part of the rest of society. Sure, there is a "spectrum" of how good a person with a disability might cope, but at the end of the day, if I throw myself into the masses and have random interactions, I always learn the same lesson: random strangers will keep treating me in a very uncomfortable way. Sure, many people try their best. Some even come across as creepy by trying so hard. But the statistics never changes. I will never feel like a "normal" person, they will make sure I never will.

Then these neurotypicals should stop their hypocrisis of preaching tolerance and considering themselves to be tolerant.

Yeah, it was supposed to be replaced with a kinder/gentler system, but that never came. They shut down the support system completely with a "we'll figure out how to fix this later" and that never came.

I think the solution is pretty obvious, TBH. Pay people to take care of their family with disabilities. It's often a full time job to take care of someone with a severe disability. Some states do make allowances to pay out to family caregivers, but it's a convoluted system where you have to be employed by a private care agency which is ultimately reimbursed for the care. There's a pointless private business in the way just adding on admin fees.

But there desperately needs to be something in place for people without that support. Parents die/leave/are incarcerated and we really don't have any sort of system setup to handle that.

no, it wasn't, it was SCOTUS decision O'Connor v. Donaldson

Reagan's destruction of the mental health system was really awful. The system needed improvement and more accountability, but we need it.

I had an adult step-brother too ill with schizophrenia to be cared for at home (he began making violent threats and stealing things, up to and including my mom's car), but under the current threshold for being compelled to take his medication. My mom (his step-mom; an attorney) spent years trying to find ways to get him help, but he bounced in and out of being homeless and ended up being murdered at about age 60 in a halfway house. Just a stupid, tragic waste of a life and all of the resources mis-allocated.

Sadly, it's just another example of how the US is penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to social services.

Then there are those of us for whom social situations are a 3-billion-line case/esac statement.

  case situation in
    shesmiledandlaughedafterthejoke)
      shelikedthejoke()
    ;;
    shesmiledandlaughedafterthejokebutlookedsideways)
      shesboredanddidntlikethejoke()
    ;;
    thejokewasfunnyoncesoitmustbefunnyeverytimeeven200times)
      crashandburn()
    ;;
    etc)
    ;;
  esac

Somehow, I managed to get married. My wife helped me understand what I was missing - it was like gaining eyesight after never having it or even understanding eyesight was a thing people had.

Yes, many people lack empathy. That is no excuse for you (or me!) to learn and use empathy.

IME religion facilities this phenomenon. In-group members (esp men) get forgiveness and freedom from consequences (perhaps conditioned on saying magic words). Whilst out-groups get "forgiveness" with extra consequences.

Politics is about power fights: whose argument will convince the mass that in this case violence (laws -> state authority) is appropriate or not appropriate.

So even if the other person is able to comprehend other worldviews (which I would claim is actually often, though not always, the case), there exist very strong incentives to ignore these other world views in your actions when politics is involved.

As far as the framing, it's helped me realize that actually, hey, sometimes it is their fault and they are being unreasonable and I actually didn't do anything wrong, they just don't like me. I mean yeah, that's also a thing.

Fuck people.

Right, who is disagreeing? Name someone. You've created a strawperson.

The knee-jerk anti-liberal responses (maybe that's not your motive, but it is for many) do enormous damage, by preventing good solutions from being implemented. The same thing happens with climate change, now vaccines, and other things. People are so focused on politics that they sacrifice lives and welfare of lots of people. There are good ideas from conservatives too - cutting off half the ideas is stupidity.

> People who have personally dealt with this know the hard truth that simply providing food and shelter isn't enough to stop a significant portion of people ending up in the streets.

In fact, the evidence and advocacy comes from people who have personally dealth with it, and providing housing does result in housing for a significant portion of people.

People need more than housing and that's where it becomes especially complex.

There are digital nomads too - they usually have money and live in rented places, but they have shelter.

Like for some deliveries you need to sign a receipt that will be legally binding, the post office would take the role of handling those.

But a lot of people might receive mail at a friends' address with permission. But, you still need to have a friend or family with a stable address who is willing to help.

In the UK I've met many interesting people both while hitchhiking myself, and while picking up hitchers. It is a practice that seems to have almost entirely disappeared here, not because it's illegal, but I guess because most people now have cars and some "stranger danger" worries.

It's certainly a perspective of many, but many others think it's wrong, that children should run freely (there's a whole movement around that), etc.

> please please also don’t forget that people are dangerous

IME from a life spent in cities has taught me that people - strangers, unhoused people, etc. - are great. Most will be happy to to help, have a pleasant conversation, etc. (Read Jane Jacobs who, iirc, examines it in detail.) Humans are social creatures - we don't live alone, we're made to socialize and live in groups.

You need to be a social creature too and read people a little. Obviously some people aren't in a mood to interact; don't be rude or an idiot (they'll probably ignore you). And there's risk to everything - you can die in an accident but still travel by car; you can catch diseases but you still leave your home.

Really, the exception I think I see at a higher rate is apparently wealthy people. Maybe they aren't accustomed to the need to help each other, but there seems to be a culture of anger toward those who might need some help today. Why don't they just support themselves like I do?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46384274

One thing that spending time talking to people online has taught me is how often what people say is just mindlessly repeating something they heard somewhere.

It's also fantastic how I find your response more persuasive than mine, while using fewer words. Well done.

Besides, "Bayes law" is not on your side on this one, it's well-known that "regular people" are over-represented in homicide, and "autistic people" or even "schizophrenic people" are under-represented and are mostly harmless

It isn't very forward thinking, but most people are mostly concerned with their immediate problems, not indirect problems that would take decades to culminate afterwards. US governmental problems are now, the problems of potential anarchy are a long ways down the road.

> As long as a house is primarily considered an investment, and not a just a structure to keep us safe from the elements and a place to raise a family, housing will only ever become more expensive and less available.

There is a sort of conspiracy to repress affordable housing, but it isn’t done primarily with property values in mind the way you’re alluding to. Most people dwell in houses; the equity is irrelevant to them until they actually sell it. High real estate prices are not an investment but a membership; they exclude undesirable residents. Most of those undesirable residents belong in psychiatric facilities, but until those facilities are reinstituted, this is the system we’re left with.

There are other factors at play (e.g. fire safety setbacks, American market expectactions favoring larger houses, etc.), but those are all far more pedestrian.

Basically everywhere on earth where an option exists, people prefer to live in autocentric suburbs or Manhattan-style megalopolises; both are expensive to construct and maintain. Slums are just an attempt to cut these costs at the expense of fire safety, sanitation, and structural integrity.