Attacking users implies intent.

This is a good point. At the same time intent cannot be directly gleaned but only inferred, so it's not that objective. We might say objectively your sarcastic tone in the subject comment means you didn't intend to insult another, but then I infer you did intend to caricature an identifiable collective third party as insulting another, which does attack the collective by implying they use slurs and are illogical. If you were to say for instance "Greenblatt says", you'd be Naming The Jew For Real and wisely moving the criticism from a nebulous collective to a known violator. Perhaps more to the point even though riskier, "Judith Resnik and Ilan Ramon say". (They have been the subject of conspiracy research.)

In my moderation experience I might let your version go as you edited it, because it's isolated, indirect, and self-moderated by repunctuation; but c/Thisisnotanexit makes the calls at the pleasure of admin and the community. The real question is to what degree you want to interact without getting hung up on meta about restoration of the forum's original honor code. I've noticed that virtually everyone claiming "censorship" here has no idea what real censorship is or has been.