Clarification and Position on “Neurodiversity” and Behavioral Responsibility

I understand that discussing neurodiversity and mental states in online conflicts is a highly sensitive matter. As a critic who has always focused on social structures and linguistic mechanisms, I would like to solemnly clarify the following points:

My position has always been consistent:

First, I have always maintained a basic respect and political sensitivity towards the situations and experiences of neurodiverse groups (including autism spectrum, ADHD, OCD, etc.). Our society is far too quick to view “difference” as “wrong,” and too accustomed to pathologizing the perceptual ways of minorities with “disorder” labels. I personally am also deeply aware of the complexity of cognitive systems, the struggles in expression, and what those daily moments of misunderstanding mean.

But this respect does not mean that all behaviors can therefore be exempt from accountability. I must clearly point out:

When someone consciously takes words out of context, manipulates meanings, repeatedly frames others, and uses platform rules to launch attacks, it is no longer a matter that can be explained by “communication barriers” or “perceptual differences.”

The behavioral pattern she exhibits is a form of perceptual egocentrism discourse structure: upgrading “I feel uncomfortable” to “the other party is guilty”; transforming “I misunderstood your words” into “you threatened me”; and using personal labels (such as autism, illness, etc.) as an unquestionable shield to suppress all reasonable rebuttals and clarifications.

This is not an expression problem caused by neurodiversity, but a manipulative behavior that systematically politicizes and instrumentalizes identity labels. I understand that autism affects contextual recognition and emotional interpretation abilities,

But autism does not lead people to initiate organized denunciations, clip others’ words and repeatedly spread distorted information, refuse all explanations, and stigmatize critics in return. If cognitive differences are a kind of dilemma, then her behavior is more like: turning the dilemma into a strategy, repeatedly used to attack others and evade accountability.

I respect her neurodiversity, but I will not attribute her aggressive behavior to neurodiversity.

I am willing to understand her sensitivity, but I do not accept her using sensitivity to negate my right to reason and clarify.

I reject any behavior that weaponizes identity labels, especially when it becomes a means to suppress others’ freedom of speech and reputation rights.

Finally, I want to say: You can have pain, but you cannot use pain to cancel out the existence of others; You can have differences, but you cannot use those differences to deprive others of the right to interpret.

What truly deserves protection is never the “label,” but those who choose honesty and respect others’ boundaries amidst complexity and reality.