The whole argument in that thread boils down to a disagreement over whether tolerance has limits. There is a fundamental paradox contained within the concept of unconditional tolerance. Does one commit to tolerating the intolerant beliefs of others?

The 'social justice' movement contains a faction who ironically insist that the rest of society must tolerate their right to arbitrarily be intolerant of others ('de-platforming'). The idea of "safe spaces" is often used to weaponize a supposed requirement for tolerance as a real application of intolerance itself.

ESR was just being pointed and firm in his assertion that the opposing position was, in his opinion, no longer worth considering. The way he used the well-known idiom "to hell with you and the horse you rode in on" contains the word "you", but was attacking an idea, not a specific person. This tendency to frame deplatforming, which is intolerance itself, as a perverted way of supposedly defending tolerance, is very destructive to honest discourse.