Some of the biggest amoral criminals in the world have been very adept socially (think Goebbels or Bernie Madoff), while some people whose morality was always lauded were known to be socially awkward (e.g. Einstein).

So while Aspergers is a disorder it is completely wrong to equate it with lack of morality.

It's his blog. He is allowed to call the guy a retard if he wants. I, on the other hand, don't have to like it, and it seriously detracted from selling me his POV. Just saying.

Understanding Asperger's "syndrome" through the metaphor of a "disease" is pretty misleading. It has its advantages and its drawbacks. Without people with Asperger's, we probably wouldn't have an internet to discuss this question on.

Diseases are progressive; often they are curable; often they are acquired; and they do not convey advantages. None of these things are true of Asperger's.

Maybe the biggest difference is that it's not something that can be cured; it's a fundamental part of who you are. A person with cancer is still the same person as before the cancer; if they cure the cancer, they're still the same person afterwards. The cancer doesn't give them the ability to do anything other people can't do. None of these things are true of Asperger's.

So I think the closest analogy is, what if he had said, "Last year, when I realized that Zuckerberg was an amoral, Negro-like entrepreneur..."?

(This analogy is weak in a couple of ways: first, clear memory, near immunity from social pressure, and improved logical ability are probably more significant abilities in today's world than resistance to sunburn; second, people with Asperger's tend to be wealthier than average, not poorer, so it may seem a little strange to treat them as an oppressed group.)

Calacanis is a neurotypical bigot. The clear implication of his statement is that people with Asperger's tend to be amoral. This is entirely false.