Are these considered "being a jerk to someone"?

Was told in message to discuss my concerns regarding moderation decisions here, so:

First,

> Because if you're toxic in game then you're toxic out of it as well. > > When they said that they don't want your toxicity on their platform, they meant it. And the client is in fact their platform as much as the game is.

Second,

> > Insane, really. > > Not really. The fact that you believe that in-game is a wonderous non-existent environment where what you say doesn't actually happen kinda supports the idea. Internet toxicity isn't separated from real life. When you're toxic on the internet, you're toxic in real life, across the internet. You wouldn't say it to someone's face so you'd say it on an internet platform. That's still real life, and you're still being a toxic person.

Third,

> > That is the most inhumane, dehumanizing generalization you could have ever possibly uttered. And you call us toxic for getting upset at people. > > How is it dehumanizing? How is it inhumane? How does any of those two terms apply to this situation of "The internet doesn't make it fantasy"? You are insulting someone. Is that not toxicity? To their face, over the phone, across the internet, using sign language, it's communication. You are communicating toxicity, therefor you are toxic. If you don't understand that, there's a reason you were punished. So you could understand that.

Granted, none of these statements were about anybody nor towards anybody, except for the last line of "If you don't understand that, there's a reason you were punished. So you can understand that." and "The fact that you believe that in-game is a wonderous non-existent environment where what you say doesn't actually happen kinda supports the idea." The rest were mere generalized statements regarding the topic at hand. If those on-topic statements are against rules, then the entire post should be removed because the topic in question was about player toxicity and why they don't have access to the client.

Or maybe the problem was with the wording of "you" "you're" "your" instead of [someone] [someone is] [someone's]? In that case, is it really an issue?