[waciki]

> As you note, most of them are generally true though

Not really, it's so mixed that I wouldnt advise a neurodivergent person to follow them, how would you know which one is good?

I don't think the author is sympathetic to autistic people:

"If you engage in less socially acceptable self-stimulatory behaviors that involve clenched muscles, quick jerky movements, rocking, or vocalizations, strangers will likely be afraid to talk to you, and even people you already know may be embarrassed to be with you in public."

You shouldn't be with people that are embarrassed to be with you, as those behaviors are usually not controllable, this is terrible.

[commodoreboxer]

Sometimes you can't help it, sometimes you are related to those people, and sometimes they also can't help it. If I'm out with a friend who has a severe disorder that means he can't help but make a loud "whoop" sound every minute or so, am I a bad person for feeling embarrassment, even if that feeling is uncontrollable? People don't usually choose to feel embarrassed. It's as helpful to tell somebody to not feel embarrassed as it is to tell somebody with verbal tics to simply not have them.

[q7xvh97o2pDhNrh]

> I don't think the author is sympathetic to autistic people

I think it's actually the exact opposite.

This reads to me like a very kind sentence. It can be very helpful to spell things out like this for such an audience. It is clear, simple, and direct.

I'll also note the sentence doesn't contain any sort of added emotions or judgment. (For example, the author could have made it worse by saying "If you decide to engage in" rather than "If you engage in," as it's currently written.)

So it really is just a straightforward statement about things that are usually never discussed at all. And, even better for this audience, the information is provided plainly, in a safe setting, with time and space to process things.

[BurningFrog]

> You shouldn't be with people that are embarrassed to be with you

There is some truth to that.

But there is also truth in "you should really try to avoid doing things that make people not want to be around you".

[darby_nine]

Eh, it depends on the situation in question. Social acceptance (if this is even possible) will cost some people far more than it can benefit them. Any behavior, principle, or value will inherently make some portion of the population not want to be around you. This is why I recommend always starting with values and building up social acceptance from there.

[jstanley]

If your friends started doing weird stuff wouldn't you be at least a little bit embarrassed? Wouldn't it be better for all parties if they knew you would be embarrassed and decided not to do it?

[tbrownaw]

Reality is often disappointing.

That doesn't make ignoring it a good idea.

[bee_rider]

I’m under the impression that most of those kinds of actions are involuntary. If anything I’m pretty sure people are wildly aware of the fact that their ticks make people uncomfortable, having lived with them their whole lives.

[metacritic12]

That's exactly a statement that's both true and unsympathetic.

I mean it's just an empirically verifiable fact through surveys that if a person self vocalizes in public, the average person (in the US) would be afraid to approach that person.

I would say that the OP's advice is useful for people who can control self vocalizations and didn't know that was seen negatively by the average person. It is NOT useful for people who can't control their self vocalizations, or people who already know about the fact.

[Filligree]

Of course it’s still useful even if you can’t control them. It still tells you about reality.