The post on logical rudeness identifies the following subtypes of the phenomenon:

• Switching between two arguments whenever headway is being made against one, such that neither can ever be refuted because the topic is changed every time that becomes a danger.
• Suddenly weakening a claim without acknowledging that it is any sort of concession.
• Offering a non-true rejection.

Eliezer also identifies the opposite of logical rudeness, to which he aspires:

I stick my neck out so that it can be chopped off if I'm wrong, and when I stick my neck out it stays stuck out, and if I have to withdraw it I'll do so as a visible concession. I may parry - and because I'm human, I may even parry when I shouldn't - but I at least endeavor not to dodge. Where I plant my standard, I have sent an invitation to capture that banner; and I'll stand by that invitation.

Saying (as you have) that "you're stupid and bad at thinking and I won't say why but it's so bad that I want you to go away" is a form of logical rudeness I would generally identify as

• Making strong claims, stating that they are backed up by strong evidence, and then refusing to provide that evidence.

Like the subtypes Eliezer describes, it's a form of motivated arguing that makes losing the argument impossible. That doesn't sound like any sort of neck-sticking-out I'm familiar with. You have not invited me to capture your banner; you have hidden it.