Half of this essay is spent memorializing a toxic editor with examples of behavior that were completely counterproductive. Yelling at an editor because they went to lunch is bold criticism, it's being a jerk for no reason or benefit to anyone.
Beyond that, there's nothing of substance here to persuade me that caring about people's feelings is an actual problem. The author takes a commonly understood, generally accepted, uncontroversial point -- that being nice is not an excuse to be wrong or to tolerate bad behavior -- and then makes a vague case that something is wrong with present-day emphasis on empathy in communication.
Then they go on to conflate a lot of criticisms together that doesn't really relate in any way. We jump from talking about how criticism should be pointed, to talking about how "nice" is applied too generally as an adjective, back to criticism of reviewer standards. It's all over the place, I suspect because there is no focused point to make. It's just a vague rant that people aren't allowed to be rude any more.
And to that point, holy heck is this author living in a bubble if they think that people are too focused on being nice today. Our political discourse is more tribalized and militarized than ever before. Has the author looked at Twitter recently? Where is this wonderful, fictitious society I can join where everyone dulls their criticism out of concern over what its effects might be?
This is an unfocused, pointless criticism of a problem that doesn't exist, supported by nothing more than poorly written, vague anecdotes, smothered in good old-fashioned 'in my day it was better' irritability, and I have no idea how it managed to make the front page of HN.
Aside from those complaints, it's very nice.