As to original notations, this is merely a confession of autism.
Absent context, this statement is ambiguous. In the context of the entirety of my previous post, it's ambiguous. This makes for poor communication. If you're alleging that some statement of mine constitutes a confession of autism, then you may be "interpreting" my words to mean something which they do not explicitly state. This also makes for poor communication.
As to questioning statements, this is mindless nitpicking or autism.
Perhaps it's your writing style, but I really have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. Are you saying that questioning the statements of another necessarily constitutes "mindless nitpicking or autism"?
This does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse.
Are you saying that questioning the statements of another does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse? That seems outright false and antithetical to the very idea of scientific inquiry, which in my opinion is highly rational and productive. We can agree to disagree on this point.
You concede my meaning but want every little line to compile.
I don't concede your meaning (which should be evident from my words "I was questioning your original claim"). You said something which was factually false. Instead of questioning your intellect, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you simply misspoke and inadvertently made a claim which you did not intend to make. If you're saying that the claim you made (that people are being blacklisted "for even daring to support anything but the democrats") is equivalent to the claim that you now seem to be agreeing with (that people are not being blacklisted for supporting non-Trump candidates), then I've already explained very clearly why you're wrong. You don't seem to disagree on that point, but you do seem to disagree that your original point was factually incorrect. You're making an argument that is internally contradictory.
You're not a computer and neither am I. We are both much more complex and sophisticated creatures that are able to interpret meaning. To limit myself to what a computer would do would be to surrender that for nothing. Deal in meaning and be human.
You seem to be inviting me to interpret your words as I see fit. So, granted full artistic license, I interpret your words to be allegorical in nature and to mean nothing more than that you... *spins wheel of random interpretation* are imprecise with your words and that your words should not be taken literally as they're likely false. Is that what you meant?
As to write in candidates, then the notion is not especially credible. That's three for three.
So, I see you're still making unsubstantiated claims and accepting them as truth. See also: begging the question, circular reasoning.
As to coming down as hard on X as Y... Do it then. Judge both by the same standard. Calculate. Run the numbers. Process the program. Find your value for X. Do it. You want to play the "I'm autistic so I'm more rational" game... fine. Let us see precisely how rational you are... because I've played this game with other people that attempted the same ploy, and generally the logical contradictions happened almost immediately. Let us see if you're different. Execute.
Perhaps it's your writing style again, but I have no idea what you're saying here. Who's coming down as hard on X as Y? Who are X and Y? Are X and Y not supposed to be come down equally hard on? I suppose some context might help here also, but after re-reading my previous post, I honestly have no idea what this could be in reference to.
As to autism as a pejorative, you were demonstrating an inability to grasp concepts in a larger context or interrelate phrases and topics with each other. This is a symptom of autism. I was hoping that by using the term you'd understand that your line of rhetorical argumentation was coming off as literally mentally disabled. Which to be very clear... that is how you were sounding. You take issue and then concede my points. If you weren't autistic or weren't behaving in that matter you'd have processed the context or the interrelation prior to taking issue and thus never found fault in the first place. Failing to do that demonstrated a dysfunction. Work on it.
That's cool, but, while it's entirely possible that I'm autistic and unable to grasp concepts in a larger context, it's also possible that you're just really bad at written communication. I submit as supporting evidence this past exchange, where you make ambiguous statements without any explicit context. In the future, you may want to make use of slashdot's quote feature, which allows you to actually provide context for your statements. I've been making use of it myself, and I note that you haven't had any issues understanding what it is that I'm trying to communicate (though, admittedly, you haven't actually been acknowledging any of the points that I've made, as far as I can tell).
Also, while I appreciate your medical opinion, you must recognize that my alleged autism doesn't excuse the fact that many of your statements lack any supporting basis, which was my original complaint. Since we're now discussing autism almost as much as we're discussing the value (or lack thereof) in voting for third parties, it seems that this hasn't furthered the very rational or productive discussion which you claim to be fond of. Perhaps in the future, we could just keep things on-topic instead of having a sidebar about neurodevelopmental disorders.