No, you just don’t understand it yourself. Many social quirks and awkwardness is because of these sorts of abnormal thought patterns that make people arrive at weird conclusions. They are in fact, an important part of diagnosing autism vs scizophrenia and many other mental disorders, as in some situations, these weird conclusions can make someone seem pretty loony, or make them shut down socially when they realize they’ve misunderstood. So you being offended by this explanation just means you do not understand nor empathise with autistic people.

I’m not saying these are the only things that make someone autistic, or that all autistic people will have such peculiar trains of thought. Just that it is common in the realm of such disorders. Autism is a MASSIVE spectrum, because it describes symptoms, not causes.

So while this type of behavior might eventually get fully separated from autism in to things like social communication disorder, that’s more of a consequence of psychiatrists/etc slowly picking appart that massive umbrella of “autism”, not that it wasn’t or isn’t currently part of it.

Yes. Pedantry doesn’t make the guy more correct. He’s still being an ass. I’m not agreeing with him. So the fact you still don’t understand is a bit… sad for you. Do you treat autistic people like shit because they don’t operate on social norms and the most common understandings of statements? If you say, “no”, then I’d suggest you introspect a LOT more, because the answer is clearly yes.

Pressure almost by definition is external influence…

No, many things in chemistry are functionally spontaneous. That’s why her usage of the word is totally fine.

He’s just taking an autistic reading of the text as I’ve described already. He’s being a bit of a pedantic ass, sure, but mansplaining is not simply being an ass.

Like I said, it takes an autistic reading of the text.

No, I’m explaining the pedantry, not agreeing with it. I said almost valid pedantry.

Yes, that’s the point. I’m explaining a very pedantic point, ofc that requires ample amounts of pedantry.

Nah you just don’t understand language or pedantry.

I said it takes an autistic reading to come to the non-standard conclusion. I’m also not agreeing with the pedantry, hence “almost valid”.

I’m sorry you do not understand how autistic people misread things or jump to funky conclusions, but I am wholly correct and you just want to be an asshole.

You’re probably one of those people that perpetuates the mistreatment of autistic people for shit like this. Pathetic of you.

Yes, I already said it is correct when viewing it as specific water boiling.

It doesn’t take a lack of understanding of the word to arrive at the guy’s conclusion. It just takes an autistic reading of the word “water”. Water WILL boil in those conditions. Just like we don’t say water “spontaneously” boils when heated up in a kettle even though it’s the exact same thing happening.

So in the abstract, the guy is correct. Though, there is also a bottle of water in the picture, and when discussing which specific water will boil, it’s a guessing game, hence “spontaneous”. “Spontaneous” totally works for discussing the water in the picture.

Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one. The fact water will boil isn’t spontaneous. “Spontaneous” still works for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict.

So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”. Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous. Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture? Spontaneous.

This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry. Nearly valid pedantry at that.