Huh, that's strange, because the comment I read said:

> ...particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism...

Which to me says the dichotomy in particular is "before autism personally affected me" and "after autism personally affected me".

Calling people "autists" as a joke is either problematic and worth calling out or it isn't. You being personally affected doesn't change that. At least that is what I would argue is required from a consistent moral framework.

Don't think that says much about my morals, just that I like them to be consistent / not myopic.

Think about the thread we're posting in. This is basically about a company/industry that was like "these retail investors don't need protecting, they're adults and can make their own decisions, even if it means losing money", until those retails investors started costing them money with their adult decisions, at which point they change their mind and decide "actually they need protecting from themselves".

The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you did the same, just swap out financial shenanigans for name-calling.