No, that'd be because your comment, for better or for worse, does not break guidelines, and because I frequently make the mistake of replying when I should have flagged as well.

Regarding helpful explanations, I really don't think they'd be unaware that allowing JavaScript wholesale would cease their run-ins with JS-dependent things not working, or that they wouldn't know their configuration was uncommon (thus ~definitionally tangential, as it makes them a minority). They are asserting that despite that, it should not be considered tangential (and that they do not consider it to be), for the reasons they list off (i.e. that there's no functional reason the site/page should depend on JS). I agree with this in the sense that I do think the topic and issue matters, but I disagree in the sense that it is absolutely a sidetrack to the blogpost itself. The word "tangential" is pulling a double duty like so in-context I'd say, and I think this is what they're trying to gesture at too.

Recounting that they're willfully running into issues like this is not useful. They have to know, and so this flagrantly sidesteps their point instead of invalidating it. Their complaining is inherently and knowingly performative and principled, as they're essentially engaging in activism with it. Even you and I are participating in this theatre; using the site guidelines and features as vehicles to make certain comments disappear / prevent them from appearing outright, or hammering on about them for the love of the game, alignment and discourse quality nonwithstanding. Whether or not participating in this way is entirely intentional though, I'm sure depends.

And personally, while I understand why this rule was placed into the guidelines, I do disagree with it; I think technical issues are not any less valid to discuss than anything else, although they are meta-commentary. The rule is also de facto perma broken in my experience, exactly because nobody actually flags for it.