I think the great difference is in the argumentation between the two posts. The way I see it, the critical post you're referring to has made no outstanding claims to be shared. On the other hand, the satiric one has been spot-on with enough people to be shared quite often. While discussion based on critique is important, it has to be thought-provoking in order to work, and this one didn't have that trait: it was just "I don't like it because reasons". Here's trivia for you: the same user went on to argue for banning "useless opinions" a bit later.
As much as I enjoy discussing this topic, I'm going to have to come back to it when I have more knowledge of how this site works. There's a difference between theory and practice in moderation tools, and I'm too new at this site to discuss it in any depth. I did see the post you linked and had replied in the comments that I didn't agree with this argument.