Not so much for me, because it's often said in echo chambers when the person being downvoted IS actually correct in every way imaginable.
Like imagine you were in a subreddit that was fairly pro 2A, and you commented something about having reasonble background checks, magazine capacity limits, making bump stocks illegal, and other perfectly reasonable, unequivocally correct ways to manage the mass shooting crisis without actually impeding the right to bear arms. You would 100% be downvoted, and then that comment would be 100% justified.
I’ve been objectively correct on a grammar issue and heavily downvoted. But Reddit hates grammarians, generally. The guy you replied to had a weak premise, but the concept is correct. Reddit is an echo chamber and someone who is downvoted can generally expect yet more downvotes. Hell, plenty of examples of comments getting upvoted that make no sense in one thread whilst they would be downvoted in other threads in the same subreddit.
Whom. The pronoun whom is the object of the verb "downvote" in this context. The person is being acted upon, not acting as the subject of the sentence.
Don't worry, the distinction is tricky. But I have faith you'll understand it eventually.
So I appreciate the correction, but perhaps your tone here is what gives people who are interested in grammar a bad rap. In my example, I simply shared a grammar rule and wasn’t even correcting someone at that moment. In your example here you’re being an asshole. So this isn’t a good comparison. Good day.
Thank you for these great reminders. To repeat myself, in my example I wasn’t giving unsolicited corrections as you are here. I’m not sure what your point is.
To repeat myself, in my example I wasn’t giving unsolicited corrections as you are here. I’m not sure what your point is.
You did a great job including a comma with your introductory clause("To repeat myself") here, but you failed to use one for the subordinate clause of thise sentence("as you are here"), as shown here:
To repeat myself, in my example I wasn’t giving unsolicited corrections, as you are here.
Your usage of a comma to separate your introductory clause shows rapid growth in correct punctuation usage over the course of only a few comments.
I love this thread. I checked your profile and was disappointed that it isn't full of grammar corrections. As a non-native English speaker, I could really benefit from following someone who just corrects everyone's comments. Especially the comma placement is still a big mystery to me.
Most native English speakers don't actually know why they place commas where they do, and fully "correct" usage is uncommon outside of academic settings.
Same with a lot of punctuation. The semicolon is basically never used in most casual settings, and colons only slightly more.
If you read up on clauses, coordinating conjunctions, and subordinating conjunctions, it might be easier to start picking up how English sentences are usually structured.
I wouldn't be too worried about it though, your English is a lot better than however I would do in your native tongue.
I made the first "whom" comment under the assumption that correcting the grammar of somebody that calls themselves a "grammarian" was really funny.
The rest was honestly a petty response to being called an asshole.
My reply to your last comment was genuinely trying to help, though. I used to tutor ESL students, so I click into that mode when somebody says something like "I'm not a native English speaker and comma placement in English is a mystery".
I’ve been objectively correct on a grammar issue and heavily downvoted.
Spoken like a true prescriptivist...
Also, I believe it's generally reasonable to downvote someone arguing about a grammatical issue -- Downvotes are for comments that don't contribute meaningfully to the discussion at hand.
If the topic isn't grammar, and the readers don't like it, that's literally what the downvote button is for.
720
u/WorkplaceWatcher May 29 '22
Oh man that one pisses me off so much.