What creates the vast distinction between 'based' (This term is sort of dumb but is the most simple way to communicate the general concept I mean) autists that largely dwell on sites such as this one, and the 'norman' autists that conform to the rules of society extremely strictly, are massive corporate consumers and, to make a generalisation, are just all around rather stupid. Look up any of the Youtubers that produce videos about autism and you will see exactly what I am talking about in regards to the latter group. Apart being slightly odd in a few ways, they are, in every other respect, turbo normans. There also does not seem to be any crossover between the groups either. You will find that the person is strongly planted in one or the other camp. I am interested to get your inputs.

the litmus test is if they think twitter is neato.

for your own wellbeing brother, I think you're better off not categorizing or even be aware of this group as a subgroup, but also I think its a generational thing having a homecinema and a dvd collection used to be peak

What it comes down to, I think, is that the 'Normie YouTuber' autist is non-threatening. They all seem to come across as either 'uwu people are mean to me I'm such a poor thing' or 'look how quirky I am'. They curate their presentation and don't show you the nasty bits. None of them are iconoclasts. Society has a kind of immune system where anyone who doesn't play the game is treated as potentially dangerous but at the same time people don't want admit to marginalising autists directly, so as a result we get this phenomenon of 'safe autism' where certain specific flavours of autistic behaviour are acceptable within narrow parameters as long as they don't frighten the neurotypicals too much. If you have the kind of autism that makes you seem unpredictable rather than cute or vulnerable then that's just not marketable.

I love uwu autists on youtube they make me wonder what could have been, if some of my favorite poeple werent unhinged maniacs

what leads someone to believing that vulnerability should be put on open display? is toothlessness a desirable characteristic? i guess it must pull on paternal instincts, or the base reflex to want to protect the frail, but why would you choose to be frail if you've got the choice? i don't get bunny people. why be the rabbit when you could be the hare?

>>6
read the geneology of morals

>>7
shit tier psued book

I haven't read that one, but I have read some Nietzsche and the one thing that really made me say 'yes, exactly!' was the idea that mercy is only really possible from a position of power and authority. Choosing not to harm others is only meaningful is that's actually an option to you. If you aren't strong enough to hurt anyone, you're not peaceful you're harmless, regardless of what you claim. There's a certain cohort these days that elevates harmlessness even though peacefulness is far more admirable and their reasoning is something I don't fully understand. Maybe they subconsciously believe that there's no point in aspiring to anything better themselves, so they elevate it in others to feel better and this leads to a mutual showcasing of weakness and a tendency to label anything not harmless as dangerous, which is what Nietzsche was getting at. A society where everyone is harmless is in theory a safe one, at least until interlopers get involved. Or maybe the peaceful/harmless distinction is genuinely lost on people.

nietzche is cool cause he said everything a lameman can think of, he doesnt try to look further ahead at all, gama is game