Reddit CEO admits to altering user comments that were critical of him

(www.reddit.com)

Show context

geuis ◴[24 Nov 16 01:39 UTC] No.13027304[source]▶

Please stop using this "alt-right" terminology. All its doing is trying to put a neutral label on a group of vile people. People that are blatantly racist, misogynist, and just anti-American. These are the same kinds of monsters that started the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" in the 1930's. They used the same rhetoric and played on desperate people's fears and prejudices.

My grandparents didn't fight on two fronts to see this bullshit taking over the United States.

replies(6): >>13027339 #>>13027430 #>>13027475 #>>13027664 #>>13027669 #>>13029023 #

1. c23gooey ◴[24 Nov 16 02:29 UTC] No.13027540[source]▶

>>13027339 (TP) #

this sort of snarky comment is exactly what turns me off HN.

what exactly is the point of your comment. do you think you are providing any sort of service to the readers of this thread.

does the fact that the OP was incorrect in a minor part of his comment invalidate the rest of it?

does your comment make you feel superior in anyway?

in the future, when posting a retort please ellucidate.

replies(2): >>13027554 #>>13027616 #

2. grzm ◴[24 Nov 16 02:33 UTC] No.13027554[source]▶

>>13027540 #

It might just be a correction, nothing more. I've done the same in the past in the interest of improving the original comment. Perhaps it could have been made clearer (e.g., "note:", s/1930s/1920/). I'm not sure you can read too much into it.

replies(1): >>13027764 #

3. return0 ◴[24 Nov 16 02:47 UTC] No.13027616[source]▶

>>13027540 #

Parent's rhetoric is self-righteous namecalling. That does nothing to persuade people, it only makes them come back at you. He/she may think they do a service to people, but they are only turning more people to name-callers. As such my snarky comment was deserved. If that interrupted our moment of collective atonement, i apologize.

replies(1): >>13027659 #

4. grzm ◴[24 Nov 16 02:56 UTC] No.13027659{3}[source]▶

>>13027616 #

Why be snarky at all? How does that promote civil discussion?

5. c23gooey ◴[24 Nov 16 03:23 UTC] No.13027764{3}[source]▶

>>13027554 #

thank you for the alternative explanation. your are most likely correct and my comment was a bit over the top for the situation.

i still stick by my point that there is a level of pedantry on HN that really turns me off

replies(1): >>13027820 #

6. grzm ◴[24 Nov 16 03:36 UTC] No.13027820{4}[source]▶

>>13027764 #

Thanks for acknowledging it :)

When pedantry serves as a roadblock to honest, charitable discussion, I agree :) I've written plenty of comments only to not-submit them, and deleted others right after posting. I've really tried to give people the benefit of the doubt, ignore small jibes if I can, and try to understand where people I may not agree with are coming from. After all, if I can't understand them, I'm not sure I can ask them to understand me. It's a work in progress. :)

PS: And actually, given their other follow-up comment,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13027616

I'm not sure if the charitable interpretation was the correct one. Even so, assuming malice rarely moves things forward.

↑