Are these accusations of hypocrisy and lack of empathy directed at rosser specifically? Or are you complaining about the general sentiment on HN? Or are you complaining about something in your imagination (since you mentioned it)?

The reason people use terms like “emotional labor” is because it’s a label for an important concept that doesn’t have other terms. It allows us to get a qualitative grasp of why, for example, different policies can affect metrics like productivity and turnover for different groups of workers.

The term “SJW” is not much more than a pejorative. It’s not very useful otherwise.

Again, this is not to rosser specifically, but to the general sentiment on HN.

I used the word imagination to consider the likelihood of an identical overwhelmingly positive response, yet directed at something that is not autism - say minorities for example.

To state that very clearly: I believe there is a differential treatment on HN for some topics such as Asperger, autism, ADHD, burnout (etc).

This can be seen by the responses it generates: keywords (regardless of their pejorativeness or the importance of the concept) are different, and some things that often don't fly do appear to fly.

If you believe it is in my imagination, do a sentiment analysis using the text of the comments for group1=(autism, Asperger, ...) group2=(minorities, women...) , then check with a t-test if the response is different.

I reject the null.

This is a valid point but does nothing to justify your earlier comments in the thread, which were basically garbage and that’s why one of the reasons why they’re flagged/dead.

The reason why people find hypocrisy so aggravating stems from the underlying mechanics of how virtue signaling works. Hypocrites are not worse in some moral sense, in fact they’re the opposite, but they are threats to other people’s social capital. Maybe that’s also the reason you’re interested in attacking hypocrisy, but these attacks are at best misdirected.

From the standpoint of someone reading your comments, it’s looks like you’re attacking someone who doesn’t deserve it (even if that’s not your intent, it’s how it looks). If you’re attacking someone who doesn’t deserve it as an attack on hypocrisy, that looks like nothing more than a bare-faced virtue signaling game play.

It sounds like your comments are connected to some genuine desire for equality and empathy for oppressed groups, so if I were you, I would consider whether the mechanics of how you are advocating for your position make sense in your value framework. Does it make sense for you to make accusations of SJW-coding? Or will people think that the term “SJW” is little more than a pejorative used by the alt-right to discredit the socially progressive?

The other problem is that it’s a common tactic to sabotage conversations about oppression—bringing up other oppressed groups as a comparison. This technique can be used to sabotage almost any conversation about any oppressed group. Well-meaning progressives will engage use this tactic unintentionally, and trolls will use it on purpose. More broadly speaking, this technique is straight out of the cold war era Soviet Union propaganda playbook for attacking and discrediting western nations.

The comment I replied supportively to was from a person whose disability involved their hearing.

Given the context of the article, that the ensuing discussion was about autism should come as little surprise, but my initial comment was completely neutral as to the nature of the disability, beyond its visibility.

As such, it might, if one were inclined to read it with its author's intent, constitute a notable data point, given your perception of "an inability to feel a similar level empathy toward people who have different problems".