To me, it's hard to ignore how this post skates over why some vegans are pushy, and how that makes statements like "There's a big difference between you making choices according to your values, and you telling other people to make choices according to your values" and "If you tell other people they should make choices according to your values instead of their values, then other people won't like you" difficult for them to swallow. If a vegan is "radical" or pushy, it's probably because they think killing animals is wrong; possibly to a similar, identical, or perhaps even greater degree than killing humans is wrong. And I don't think anyone trying to convince a serial killer to stop murdering people would appreciate being told "There's a big difference between you making choices according to your values, and you telling other people to make choices according to your values", or "If you tell other people they should make choices according to your values instead of their values, then other people won't like you." That isn't necessarily less true about serial killers than it is about a meat-eaters, but I'm sure it's intuitive to you that if you said that to an anti-serial-killer (i.e. most normal people), the response would be something like "Excuse me?" I get the sense that your argument is meant to be a purely pragmatic one — "You're not going to get anywhere with this, and it's wasting resources you could use on more tractable problems, so you should change your approach or just stop entirely" — but I think that the people who most need to hear that argument (on any subject where it obtains, not just veganism) wouldn't even realize that's your argument. They view their bugbear as an extremely important moral problem; insofar as your argument fails to address that perspective, and instead treats the bugbear as a mere cultural difference that they're "weird" for objecting to, I think it isn't going to sound like a pragmatic argument that their approach simply isn't working. At worst, it will sound like you're saying "Why are you so worked up about murder? Don't you know that murder is acceptable in some cultures? Why are you so intolerant?" At best, it will sound like you're missing the point, because it will sound like you're just saying they would have more friends if they got less worked up about murder. I'm sure you can see why they would not even find that argument relevant, let alone persuasive. They wouldn't be so pushy in the first place if they cared more about having friends than about people doing less murder.

Canon already acknowledges that it might be detrimental. "Sometimes I think we Sort too early."

Not to mention, why would Harry continue to wear the ring on his person where anyone could Finite the Transfiguration away? He would either keep it somewhere else, or (as you say) he'd put a metric ton of protections on it so that a simple Finite wouldn't bring back Voldemort.

In that case "wokking" would be less confusing.

For what it's worth, I still prefer the original title, even after seeing the rationale for changing it. Oh well.

How did you even discover that you have aphantasia without discovering that "picture something in your mind" isn't metaphorical?

You're using "analogy" to describe what I was always taught is a "simile".

if people are as astonishingly bad at the task as the paper says, that just reflects on their memory, not the acuity of their mind's eye.

What makes you think that? And what makes you think it has to be one or the other, rather than a combination?

I mostly miss people retroactively. When I see someone again after a long separation, I might get emotional. And I get really emotional at the moment of re-separation. But I don't usually feel the pain of their absence during their absence. Apparently (according to adhd-alien) this can be a symptom of ADHD, which I was diagnosed with before I noticed this fact about myself.

I'm not sure how the "loud sounds" one corresponds to a phrase that people commonly use, metaphorically or otherwise.