Facts can never be immoral. Revealing facts is usually not immoral either.
Some facts can challenge people's beliefs such as religion. The way that some facts are discovered can be immoral and unethical in some cases.
Doing things at any cost is wrong a lot of the time.
It depends what the thing is.
Embrace facts for they let you make better decisions regardless of your values and motives.
Give some examples; go deeper.
non-autists are usually fact denialists
You'll find that 1% of the world's population is autistic(1.), so some non-autistic people are bound to deny facts because the sample size is huge. Also, some people deny facts because of the fact having a lack of evidence to prove it correct. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe a point if there wasn't anything to back it up unless that person has an understanding of the topic or that person is gullible.
They usually communicate to exchange social signals instead of information. They don't always lie because there is a difference between lying and not even caring about facts at all and they usually don't even care about facts.
Who are you referring to as "they"?
There are more that just words in conversations. Conversations are mostly all to do with body language. See this below image for details:
If you have won against a non-autist in an argument, the non-autist who probably does not care about the argument itself at all (since non-autists are generally fact denialists) does not perceive it as a discussion about reality but instead an attack on his/her social status.
*If you have won against a non-autistic person in the argument, that person probably does not care about the argument itself (since non-autistic people tend to deny facts.
The next part of sentence isn't structured in a way that I can understand
*but instead as an attack on that person's social status
It's 2017 - not all people consider themselves to be either male or female.
What you're saying in this part is generally false. People only take certain facts about ethical issues (such as science vs religion) as attacks on their social status.
To an autist "Alice knows more than Bob" literally means "Alice has more knowledge compared to Bob" while a non-autist will probably interpret it as "Alice has higher social status than Bob".
*To an autistic person, "Alice knows more than Bob" literally means "Alice has more knowledge compared to Bob"; however, a non-autistic person will probably interpret it as "Alice has higher social status than Bob".
People intemperate things in a different way. Why would the phrase "Alice knows more than Bob" be interpreted as "Alice has higher social status than Bob" for all non-autistic people? I'd interpret it as "Alice knows more about [a subject] than Bob". This is because the word "know" is clearly based on knowledge. The word "know" can be found in the word "knows"...
Edited 7/3/2017 23:56:31