this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
283 points (96.7% liked)
Greentext
7852 readers
890 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are both autistic.
I love how autism has become this fetishized thing that you slap onto all people operating outside of expected parameters.
Everything is an autistic trait when you go looking for autistic traits.
That’s exactly what I’d expect an autistic person to say.
I don't think that's what fetishized means.
It is. It refers to things being held in special regard in social arrangements, to an religious extent. The autism discourse, with all the memes and such, does more often than not include a cult-like adherence to beliefs around certain behaviours that anyone could display, shifting focus away from the developmental aspects of autism which are very much real and to diagnostic markers that are less than well defined but are used in clinical settings like: trouble at work/school/kindergarten [Y/N], and certain things the hiveminds of the world latch onto. There I think of people regarding dislike of the "big" light as being an indicator for autism(???).
yeah, I don't think that applies here
There are also civil and secular religions, so it still applies. Think about the way we fetishize democracy, long covid or mold exposure. Really interesting topic.
Makes one wonder if vampires are autistic.
Autistim is the new 'touched by god'.
That's a very informal, essentially slang usage of the word. It's so informal that it's pointless to argue about whether it's even correct.
Huh?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fetishism
Entry 1. and 3., I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Literally not
Completely unrelated, seems like you have a bug up your butt about something else. Also I'm pretty sure nobody thinks that either, sorry a prescriptivist upset you but that has no relation to what I said.
Either you're using "literally" in a non-literal fashion, or you're using it to make your statement even more incorrect.
My tip: don't argue with people who know not even the terms they are attempting to criticize the use of. +also they seem to be using a sockpuppet account to upvote themselves and write comments
Maybe, making it as incorrect as possible serves to prove a point which makes statement phrased correctly for the goal in mind?
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!