Andrew Nielson

I uploaded my newly published book, "Red Ink and Green Ink: Navigating Interaction While Socially Colorblind" to Grok and had it write a short review: "Andrew Nielson’s Red Ink and Green Ink is a compelling exploration of the autistic experience, using a brilliant analogy that likens navigating social rules to solving math problems with color-based rules while colorblind. This vivid metaphor makes the invisible struggles of autism accessible to all readers. Nielson’s conversational tone, infused with humor and pop culture references, creates an engaging and relatable read. The book’s structured breakdown of socialization stages—primary socialization, anticipatory socialization, developmental socialization, and resocialization—offers deep insights into the challenges autistic individuals face. Purposeful repetition mirrors the ongoing, evolving nature of these struggles, immersing readers in the experience. Nielson’s heartfelt advocacy for societal understanding fosters empathy, making this a valuable resource for autistic individuals, their loved ones, and educators. A powerful, accessible read that bridges perspectives. Rating: 8/10" Never take AI at it's word, it's just a biased and predictive word salad. Check it out here: amazon.com/dp/B0FTYWYKMS

@RBReich Reminder that any political party trying to make it easier to commit voter fraud is sending a clear message: they can't win on their ideas alone.

Reminder that any political party trying to make it harder to vote is sending a clear message: they can't win on their ideas alone.

Obviously commonly understood in american pop culture to mean kill him. When you say "86 the salad", you're clearly not talking about murder. When you say "86 him" the implication is clear. All this "Well they didn't say 'Kill him' because that would be a crime, so they obviously didn't mean that wink wink nudge nudge" is just intentionally defending calls for murder.

This is absolutely insane. Trump says '86' is a "mob" term for "kill him". Hey @grok, is "86" a mob term for "kill him?" "Get rid of him" is. "Remove him" is. "Make him go away" is as well. Are those all now threats to say too if you are a Democrat? Trump: “You know 86. It is a mob term for kill him. You know. Did you ever see the movies? ’86 him’ That means ‘kill him.’ I think of it as a mob term. People think of it as something having to do with disappearing. But the mob uses that term to say when they want ot kill somebody. They say ’86 the son of a gun.’ “

@MrBeast Anything more than a 10% flip and blue dies btw.

@MrBeast Now, if this actually risked your life, and blue voters risked death instead of online brownie points, what percent of blue voters do you think would flip to red?

Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? BE HONEST.

@greendragonhq Because 9/10 is still a fraction?

Wait a second…. If Democrat-led cities are the reason the murder rate in Republican states is so high… Why do Democrat-led cities inside Democrat-run states have a fraction of the murders…?

@SamuraiDoggo @PainfulSatire @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane Right the "I use antlers in all of my decorating" guy wouldn't hunt a beast rumored to terroize his village?

@Andrew_Nielson @PainfulSatire @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane No, he wouldn't.

Gaston was an extreme narcist who belittled literacy, mocked Belle's father, forced his way into her house while her father isn't home, tried to kiss her against her will, and then threw her father into an insane asylum as a bargaining trick to force her into marrying him. He is an evil, self-centered, manipulative man that is a mockery of true masculinity. The movie literally starts with telling the audience 'appearances can be deceiving' and you goofballs fall for Gaston's schtick hook, line, and sinker.

Probably, but he likely wouldn't have riled up a mob. He'd have prepped, brought lefou on a hunting trip, and planned their attack. He's a narcissist, there's no better boost to his ego than slaying a monstrous beast. He'd do it just to mount beast's head in the tavern and have everyone tell him how great he is.

@Andrew_Nielson @PainfulSatire @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane Here's a question I haven't seen anyone ask yet. If it didn't involve Belle, would Gaston have still done this? I'm guessing no.

@PainfulSatire @obnoxious_pony @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane Maurice literally told Gaston face to face that he was imprisoned by the beast and belle took his place as he was pleading with him to save her from the beast. It's immediately after the largest musical number in the movie. Watch it again.

@Andrew_Nielson @obnoxious_pony @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane THERE IS NO "he was thinking she was kidnapped" BECAUSE NEITHER HE NOR THE FILM SAYS IT!! IT'S COMPLETELY MADE UP FROM THE MINDS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO PICK FOR THINGS THAT WERE NEVER THERE

@PainfulSatire @obnoxious_pony @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane I've never argued that he did. I never said Gaston was a good person. Gaston is an evil selfish prick. You can't seem to separate "Gaston is the villain" from "What is this story trying to convey?"

@Andrew_Nielson @obnoxious_pony @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane give me one single instance that he did care on some level about belle as a person, then I'll see what you have to say

Maurice literally burst into the tavern raving about how he was held prisoner by the beast and now he has his daughter. Just because it didn't explicitly state it in that scene doesn't mean Gaston has the memory of a goldfish and forgot what maurice said. He now has proof maurice was right, this horrific beast imprisoned him and belle, and belle seems to have developed feelings for this monster.

@obnoxious_pony @Andrew_Nielson @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane the film is as overt as it gets, where the fuck does he ever think about anyone but his own interests??

@joe_shipman "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -Rush

(1/2) This is a superficially symmetrical situation. But in reality, it’s not. With only a blue button, doing nothing puts you in no jeopardy. With only a red button, a situation has been created in which you are not safe if you do nothing.

@94SweetGoats @Otome_chan311 And still, a third of voters still pick between blue and purple. There is a non-suicide pact option, but they won't do it.

@Andrew_Nielson @Otome_chan311 Even in this one, it's totally different than the original question. In the other one, blue saved everyone. Now it doesn't not because of the threshold but because there are three choices. Different dynamic, regardless of threshold. And still, blue and purple are in war here.

Everyone in the world must press one of three buttons: Blue = you die unless 51% of people also press blue. Purple = you die unless 52% of people also press purple. Red = you always live regardless of outcome, but blue&purple pressers will blame you for their deaths.

@mfreivald @MelchizedekShem Other christians, in context, being christians who don't follow the Nicean creed. You are being intentionally obtuse. It's clear your central scripture is the creed itself, and not the Bible.

@Andrew_Nielson @MelchizedekShem Right. And then you misrepresented me by saying "But you can't even accept that premise because you don't believe any other christians are christian," which is not the same thing. You seem to be very confused.

Where does the Bible say I need to believe the Nicene Creed to be a Christian?🧐🥸

@mfreivald @MelchizedekShem Your literal position this entire time has been that you aren't christian if you don't abide by the nicean creed.

There were, indeed, Arians in the Church. That was the whole point--to root out the Arianism from the Church. The Arians did not have the same beliefs as those with clear apostolic succession. Why are you asking dumb questions? I also never said or implied that I believed any other "Christians" are not Christian. Your frenetic sputtering is degenerating into dishonest falsehoods. You might want to slow down for some introspection.

So Arians were the same church? They had the same beliefs? Or were all variations of Christian thought invited to sign or be exiled? Note, I only listed christians, not jews, not muslims, not pagans, christians. But you can't even accept that premise because you don't believe any other christians are christian.

That's a nonsense analogy. There was One Church--the one founded by Jesus Christ Himself. Constantine did not gather many religions--he called for the assembly of the leadership of the One True Church. He did not invite pagans. He did not invite other religions or "churches." That is a matter of historic record. Your case fails.

I never said Constantine demanded everyone adhere to his idea of what God was. Put it this way, say the president of the united states brought Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and other denominational and non-denominational leaders together, and said, "We have too much division in this country, we all love Christ, but we have these petty disagreements, so here's what wer're going to do. You're all going to debate and vote, and we'll write a creed, the biggest creed, the best creed, and we'll all sign it. Then we'll have one church, one GREAT church. Anyone who doesn't play ball, we don't want them here, if they don't sign, they're UNAMERICAN, so they're OUT! We don't want them here anyway, we'll send them to Canada." Even if the theologians come to a biblicly valid interpretation, it would not be irrational or unchristian to say you don't follow the Great American Creed. You could believe that it's accurate, that's fine, but to believe that anyone who doesn't follow it to the letter isn't Christian is ridiculous.

Signing the consensus is not the same thing as reaching a consensus. My point was that the consensus was not forced, and Constantine did not control what the consensus would be. Your claim that "One who doesn't follow the nicean creed is not Christian" is not accurate is a gratuitous and vacuous claim you are making. Essentially you are saying that someone doesn't have to believe in the Christian gospel in order to be Christian, which is obvious tommyrot. If someone were to name a frog "Jesus" and claim it was Jesus from the Bible for his new religion, we would reject it outright no matter how much the frog or the accompanying theology mimicked Christianity. If someone worship a Jesus who is not God--the infinite God, then you are worshipping a fake "Jesus" that is far closer to the frog than to Jesus. Your characterization of the conditions of the Council are clearly biased and inaccurate.

@plasmarob > Be blue > See suicide pact button > See I get to live button

> be red and blue discourse > reds say safety, blues say risk to save others > blues win, celebrate hope > safe reds get big mad > reds say people now expect blue so it's dangerous > revote, blues win again > reds still mad and claim irl moral ground why is this

@PetertheRaven @PainfulSatire @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane Oh no! Someone who can't see past "this guy is the villain" to understand the moral treatise of the story thinks I'm illiterate? THE HORROR!

@Andrew_Nielson @PainfulSatire @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane Quite frankly, I think it’s embarrassing and a damning indictment that someone as illiterate as yourself can become a published author in today’s climate. Also, I have little reason to believe your claims either way.

@PetertheRaven @PainfulSatire @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane Making more than I spent on marketing. Or do you think that I'm upset I didn't become a millionaire and a household name in the 6 months since I self published?

@Andrew_Nielson @PainfulSatire @LeahnNovash @MichaelFKane Yeah, and how’s that working out for ya, Bub?