You didn't address any points made by the author. You made a generic comment that could apply to any post on codes of conduct, and that's specifically against Hacker News posting guidelines.
The irony here is art187 has illustrated CoCs not working while espousing their virtues. HN guidelines is a CoC, even though it isn't named that. It has all the hallmarks of a typical CoC.
Here, art187 has made a generic comment and, as you point out, posted a shallow dismissal of the author's work. Both in violation of hn guidelines.
The original post by art187 could have succinctly been stated as "I disagree" which basically adds nothing to the conversation.
No action has been taken after 17 hours. It's still the top rated comment.
The author's submission highlights what the author thinks is "The Problem": CoCs don't work.
It's fine to disagree with that, but it's helpful to point to examples of a CoC working rather than creating another example of them not working. At the very least, comments ought to discuss specific points. None of that happened here.
Contrast that with benign comments that moderators label as "personal attacks"
No actions are taken. The implications are clear. The CoC here is used as a stick to smack people with opinions that the moderators don't like. All more evidence in favor of the author's stated assertion that CoCs don't actually work.
You didn't address any points made by the author. You made a generic comment that could apply to any post on codes of conduct, and that's specifically against Hacker News posting guidelines.