> If you don't insert this social "fluff", you come across as rude.
Isn't this a bit overstated? I'm pretty sure that you could also use bog-standard politeness markers (like, "could you please", "I would really appreciate it", "sorry about asking") and so on and so forth. (You might then come across as being a bit formal and old-fashioned, but certainly not rude!) The underlying motivation in both cases is that you need to make it very clear that you're not issuing an outright demand - and you do this by making it easy for Mike to say no (for any reason or no reason!) and providing plausible deniability. There are things that are closer to "fluff" in other contexts, but even they have their own explanation.
I think you might be right. But autistic people may find it difficult to determine these underlying motivations, I think because neurotypical people only intuit them because their instinctive preferences happen to line up with other peoples. If an autistic persons instincts don't give them the same reaction, then it will not be obvious to them that other people will have that reaction (unless they have learnt that this is a common reaction that people have). It can be easy to end up with an overzealous rule, to be on the safe side.
If the justification for something is stated in terms of something that also isn't important to or felt by the autistic person (for example politness), then it can be difficult to be sure what does or does not transgress the social rule.
It's more about culture than neurotype. There's nothing in human nature itself or in human instincts that says "people will feel uncomfortable when refusing something that a stranger of equal social rank is asking of them, unless they have been provided with plausible deniability". It's a feature of our current (Western) culture. And since autism tends to come with issues relating to general intercultural competence, it's no wonder that someone who's autistic would have trouble picking this up. But so would any non-native in the relevant cultural context!
This seems like a reasonable interpretation. People from other cultures may also be excused from cultural norms to some extent as people understand that they don't have the context. And I've definitely gotten very good at politely diffusing situations where I've accidentally crossed social boundaries (I have more problems when I take moral issue with the social norm, and thus am unwilling to go along with it).
Isn't this a bit overstated? I'm pretty sure that you could also use bog-standard politeness markers (like, "could you please", "I would really appreciate it", "sorry about asking") and so on and so forth. (You might then come across as being a bit formal and old-fashioned, but certainly not rude!) The underlying motivation in both cases is that you need to make it very clear that you're not issuing an outright demand - and you do this by making it easy for Mike to say no (for any reason or no reason!) and providing plausible deniability. There are things that are closer to "fluff" in other contexts, but even they have their own explanation.