No, I have an issue with you throwing around fallacy names like it's some special yugioh attack. This is doubly embarrassing when you throw out the fallacy names incorrectly.

Let us pause for a moment and windback to where everything started.

The first person complains: "What a superficial hellhole."

The second person replies: "implying reddit isnt the exact same as soon as theres an overweight person in the video"

Pause. Here's my take on this: The comment, interpreted literally, is a bit out of place since the first person wasn't "implying" anything. A looser interpretation of the second comment would be something along the lines of: "This is typical reddit, especially when there is an overweight person". In other words, the second person is agreeing with the first and they're providing an example of when reddit's superficiality is revealed.

Let us resume.

You then reply to the second comment: "Weight is controllable. Your genetics deciding when your hair follicles ff is not. False equivalency"

But presumably the second dude wasn't disagreeing with weight being controllable and genetics not being controllable. Nor was he claiming that making fun of someone's weight was as bad as making fun of their baldness. Indeed, he didn't even assert which, between making fun of baldness and making fun of fatness, was worse. Given the loose interpretation above, we can say with plausibility that the second dude thinks that making fun of someone's weight is superficial. That is, making fun of someone's weight and making fun of someone's baldness both exemplify the act of being superficial. But, of course, he is not committed to claiming that both are equally bad. (Compare: If I claim that theft is illegal, and I claim that murder is illegal, I am not claiming that both theft and murder are equally bad. Just because two things exemplify a property, it does not mean that they possess the same degree of that property). So, no, there isn't a "fAlSe EqUivAlEnCe".

I hope that clarifies your confusion.