Co-sign.
I do agree that “horseshit argument” is rather more coarse than the preferred tenor of debate here. But I also think it reflects an intensification of this particular thread, and a general feeling of ganging up. A mod caution to all to cool the collective jets would have been appropriate, in my view.
I read it as more personal i.e. an attack on the poster’s sense of humour. But de gustibus.
Sarcasm is a rhetorical device, used to make an argument by stretching the proposition you’re challenging, so it seems to me that @Ultra Vires was challenging the counter-argument being made against him.
“A terrible attempt at sarcasm” is, to me, a comment on the failure of a counter-argument that is being made.
But note as well, the definition of sarcasm. Here’s the Wikipedia definition, but it’s common to dictionaries:
My bold.
If sarcasm is used to “mock someone”, isn’t the use of sarcasm attacking the poster, not the post? So if UV is criticising it as “terrible sarcasm”, isn’t he drawing attention to what he sees as a personal attack? Is sarcasm itself going to become suspect, because it can be seen as personal attacks? There goes a useful form of argument.
GD has always been a raucous place. Not the Pit, but there’s always been strong criticisms of the arguments being made. If we have to mind our language in the way suggested by this moderation, it will become more difficult to critique another poster’s arguments.
I fail to see how the phrase “horseshit argument”, and critiquing the rhetorical devices another poster uses, is an attack on the poster.
And note as well that UV’s comment about “A terrible attempt at sarcasm” was made in response to Moriarty’s comment that it was “well-crafted sarcasm”. UV was disagreeing with that characterisation of the sarcastic argument. Moriarty was approving of the rhetorical device; if UV cannot express his disapproval, then the argument is unbalanced.
Really, it keeps coming back to the use of “horseshit”. If that can’t be used in GD because it is “uncivil”, then a lot of other strong adjectives are also out the window.
That’s what the “Flag post” button is for, they tell us.
Based on input in this thread together with internal discussions with other moderators, I am revoking the mod note and apologize to @UltraVires. My understanding is that there is more latitude in GD for incivility than I realized.
I just want to add my agreement to this, and the same view that others have expressed. “Attack the post, not the poster” is a mantra that we hear over and over again. That’s exactly what @UltraVires did. That he should be mod-noted for it is incomprehensible. If this stands as an acceptable ruling, it really puts a damper on debates in GD.
I very much disagree with most of UltraVires’s political views, and so do many others, with the result that he’s been pitted and maligned for them probably more than most other posters. Which is fine – he’s quite capable of defending himself. What is really unfortunate is that he should now also be victimized by bad modding, and one can hardly blame him for perceiving it as discriminatory.
As I think someone else pointed out, that may seem valid at first glance, but in context that comment was in response to someone calling the argument “well crafted sarcasm”. UV was responding directly to that comment.
Thank you, @Aspenglow. Needless to say, I composed and posted the above comment before seeing your post. 
Good on ya, @Aspenglow
My bold.
Thanks for doing that so quickly. In case he has left, could you PM him about the change? Maybe he has email notifications set up. Or email him directly from his contact email? If he isn’t made aware of the change, rescinding the note makes no difference.
I actually just PM’d him.
Thanks, I did also. But since we don’t know each other, I didn’t know if he would even read it. But mod PMs show up a different color and he would actually know who you guys are. 
Thanks again.
I might also suggest that whether or not it might conceivably be viewed as an attack on “the post,” it is of a different character than a proper attack on “the post” in that it is not only “uncivil”—and I generally agree civility is overrated—but effectively kills that line of discussion and likewise deprives the other poster of an opportunity to make a meaningful reply. What are they supposed to say, “Nuh-uh, it’s not horseshit because it’s not shit from a horse!”?
In short, it evidences not only extreme jerkishness (which, again, I might allow is appropriate at times), but bad faith, and posting in bad faith should, IMHO, be moddable. Personally, I think the original call was essentially correct, particularly as it was only a mod note and the response to it completely overblown.
I would think that calling horseshit, being an ungendered insult, would be more acceptable than calling bullshit, which is a gendered insult.
It was just a Note.
I can’t see how it’s posting in bad faith. Bad faith means that he’s posting with some sort of ulterior motive. But his motive seems to have been very much what he said it was—to attack a post that he thought was bad.
And you very well can reply. The most common reply is “What about the argument is horseshit [or bullshit]?” Either he answers, or he concedes that he doesn’t actually have a reason.
But, in this case, he already gave part of the reason: he thinks his argument is a valid one and gave a (rather short) argument for why: “If X is a good thing, could X plus Y be too much and a bad thing? I think not WRT free speech.”
There’s the obvious counterargument of bringing up intersectionality–the fact that two things when added together can be more than the sum of their parts. Plus there’s the question if free speech is always a good thing.
Do I like his responses in that thread? No. I think he was allowed to hijack the thread beyond what it was actually about by bringing up abortion and SSM, two Well-Worn™ topics. The question was about whether it was a bad thing to reject a particular judge, considering certain previous actions. And it wasn’t as if the reasons for not confirming were the judge’s positions on either of those. It was an indirect way to defend the guy for being a bigot.
I actually wish I’d flagged it. But I honestly expected that either the thread would move on or the mods would step in. Especially after WE’s modnote about keeping it focused on a single judge.
My 2¢ after the fact. I reported a series of posts that violated (IMO) the don’t be a jerk rule and were a borderline personal attack. The posts were not modded because they attacked the post and not the poster (according to the mods). In fact, here is the reply the mod had for me
It was clear redacted was characterizing your argument, not making a personal attack on you – although I’ll allow it can sometimes feel like a personal attack. But we don’t moderate for that.
This isn’t the pit, so I want to keep from making this personal, re: UV (and doubly so since he has decided to withdraw from the board and I’d like to take him at his word), but I think calling an argument horse shit and bringing in a couple of “well-worn” unrelated topics is pretty strong evidence of an ulterior motive, whatever the forum, whoever the poster. Such a reply gives no opportunity to meaningfully continue the discussion if the only opening for a response requires me to either participate in the derailment, ignore it, or legitimize it as if it weren’t the equivalent of a tantrum wholly unworthy of a response. Bad faith.
At worst, I think @Aspenglow could have more clearly framed the basis for the mod note. I do not think the mod note was unwarranted. Modified, perhaps, but not rescinded. Especially not after what we’ve seen in this thread.
What is it that “we’ve” seen in this thread? Because what I’ve seen is that most people in this thread think the note was wrong, and that includes several mods and the mod that issued the note.
The note was especially bad because anyone that has spent any time in GD should know how common and accepted such language has always been. And I mean always. By their own admission in this thread, people on the left have said they have both seen and used such language many times with no moderation. By somehow choosing to only mod a disliked right wing poster, it smacks of bias in moderation. Do we really need that, considering that conservatives already feel they are moderated unfairly?
We just lost a poster last week solely because of mod interaction. Since the note has been rescinded, let’s put some effort into not losing another poster, rather than trying to come up with new excuses for the note.
BTW, telling a poster to “squiz” the rules when the moderator has apparently never “squizzed” the rules is just insult piled on injury.
What exactly have we seen in this thread that you’re referring to?
Given how sometimes complaints about moderation feel like shouting into the abyss (I do not speak from personal experience, only reading other’s ATMB threads) and how difficult it is to admit a mistake, I just want to applaud @Aspenglow for a willingness to reconsider and I hope the message reaches @UltraVires.
(I hold no opinion on the moderation itself. But when a cross-section of posters disagree with a mod action, it should be properly reconsidered as it was here to the credit of all involved.)