To be fair, Aaron wasn’t really heavily involved with Reddit. He was involved with Infogami, which failed and was merged with Reddit. Per this post, he got equity in Reddit as a result, but only worked for a few months on the actual site.
After his death and the media portrayal of him as a martyr for free speech, Reddit started claiming him as “co-founder” much more vocally than they had previously. While technically he had that title, his involvement on Reddit was neither starting the company nor working on it for any extended period of time.
That being said, given what Reddit’s become, wherever his spirit roams now, I’m sure he’s relieved to have his name off the site.
I find that people who judge a statement, not based on the whole of it’s content, but on the surface aesthetic of it to be wholly smart as a bag of rocks.
I for one don’t see the issue with that “to be fair” statement here. The parent used it merely to announce that they were going to take the counter-point to the most likely community view, i.e., they were going to defend Reddit’s action of not naming Swartz as co-founder. They then proceeded to do so by explaining that Swartz never really played a co-founder role. The comment implied “to be fair [to whoever at Reddit made that decision] and then went on to provide supporting argumentation.
It’s quite different from the lazy use of the phrase, e.g., “to be fair, both sides suck” that you may find in political discussions without supporting arguments, for example.
To be fair, Aaron wasn’t really heavily involved with Reddit. He was involved with Infogami, which failed and was merged with Reddit. Per this post, he got equity in Reddit as a result, but only worked for a few months on the actual site.
After his death and the media portrayal of him as a martyr for free speech, Reddit started claiming him as “co-founder” much more vocally than they had previously. While technically he had that title, his involvement on Reddit was neither starting the company nor working on it for any extended period of time.
That being said, given what Reddit’s become, wherever his spirit roams now, I’m sure he’s relieved to have his name off the site.
i find explanations that begin with the phrase “to be fair”, usually consist entirely of spin
I find that people who judge a statement, not based on the whole of it’s content, but on the surface aesthetic of it to be wholly smart as a bag of rocks.
no need to get personal, it’s just an observation
To be fair, his statement was also just an observation.
not one you can prove as easily as the phenomenon i described, though… you can check it… bullshit begins with “to be fair”, and other such phrases…
It also often starts with “I find” or “In my experience”.
Almost like they’re often opinion based, and not fact based.
no, it’s a sophistic device, meant to couch interpretation… followed usually by information about how things are viewed, etc… spin…
you are attempting to insist that what follows is the “fair” perspective… it’s a cheap device used quite frequently…
I for one don’t see the issue with that “to be fair” statement here. The parent used it merely to announce that they were going to take the counter-point to the most likely community view, i.e., they were going to defend Reddit’s action of not naming Swartz as co-founder. They then proceeded to do so by explaining that Swartz never really played a co-founder role. The comment implied “to be fair [to whoever at Reddit made that decision] and then went on to provide supporting argumentation.
It’s quite different from the lazy use of the phrase, e.g., “to be fair, both sides suck” that you may find in political discussions without supporting arguments, for example.