[LoganDark]

Generally, people who aren't autistic may not understand how autistics associate information with other information, and may get confused when they see me talking about a seemingly unrelated or irrelevant subject in response to seeing a particular piece of information. As far as I could tell that seemed likely to have been the case here, which is why I mentioned my being autistic, because that may help one understand how I happened upon this train of thought under a submission that speaks nothing of psychedelics or LSD whatsoever. (The triggering phrase was 'designer drug', a term which I've also seen used in the context of psychedelics.)

[hoseja]

I don't think mentioning you're autistic actually clears that up. Would probably be better to mention the association thought process without leading with the diagnosis.

[LoganDark]

It's cleared up separately, immediately after that mention. The thought process appears obvious because it makes logical sense once explained, but people don't always intuitively infer it, if that makes any sense; it's difficult to explain, but I think my comment was perfectly sufficient. I suppose the mention of autism was meant as a qualifier for the information that follows; sort of a "here is why my brain works this way" before the actual "here is how that comment happened the way that it did".

[borski]

While I hear what you’re saying and I agree in general, I think what you’re reading is that in this case the logical jump was fairly obvious with or without the mention of your diagnosis. I have ADHD, and it seemed very obvious to me.

That said, you can be as open as you want about your diagnosis. I didn’t think there was anything wrong with your comment.

[LoganDark]

Thanks. I suppose it could've been an "I'm autistic, so ..." instead. I'll keep that in mind if ever again I need to answer similarly.