i'm not sure what it is you find unfuckingbelievable about a request to lay off ad hominem attacks on people you don't agree with - particularly when that person is being very polite. if you feel someone is lacking information, it's easy to fix - share the information.
since the idea of 'safe spaces' seems of concern here, maybe i'll risk sharing a relevant thought about that (sorry):
i went to oberlin college (natch) in the late 90's, where i first encountered the notion. it was mostly of interest to black students, and increasingly to gay students.
the conservative right loves to use the term 'safe space' in a straw man argument, referring to some kind of forbiddance of uncomfortable or controversial topics or material. but i've never seen this taken seriously by adults. (though i can see how it might apply in extreme cases; e.g. PTSD sufferers and so on. that's another topic...)
the 'safety' sought in this kind of safe space is safety from aggression in discourse, and a guarantee of mutual respect. it would be great if we could trust people to give that in an opt-in environment like an internet forum or an academic institution.
unfortunately, what black/gay/female students in rural ohio found, is that the only way to guarantee that kind of safety was to take up policies that explicitly exclude people who aren't black/gay/female. because straight/white/male students were simply too well-socialized to be trusted to give up their power willingly.
and in the intervening 20 years i have heard every kind of debate about this kind of policy. doesn't look like we're any closer to figuring it out.