> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith

I read up to this point thinking you’re being overly pedantic about the specific use of a sarc mark and overly dismissive of the benefit of intent-clarifying hints in text. All the while thinking “I’m going to comment about how much I value intent-clarifying hints in text… and then I have to decide whether I want to mention I’m autistic, and prepare for all of the ways I might be misconstrued or dismissed further.”

So here we are, you’ve saved me the trouble of making that decision. I personally very much appreciate when people signal intent when their meaning can be ambiguous. It doesn’t always feel necessary for me, but it’s never once felt like it taken away from something I otherwise understood as obvious.

My take, which is much cooler than it was when I was gathering thoughts leading up to this but still mildly hot is: what harm does it do to you if someone voluntarily makes something more accessible to someone who’s not you? If you already grokked /s from a sarcastic remark, it’s a tiny bit of information you can scroll past. I understand not explicitly recognizing and endorsing how it might benefit autistic readers, but explicitly rejecting it because it might is baffling.