I have recently asked a question about Physicalism and if there are any useful thought experiments against the concept , like Mary's Room and Searle's Chinese Room ; I think it was Jobermark who replied 'I refuse to answer this question , I want to rant and rave about it , it is evil'. I commented this reply is not very helpful and gave a downvote. He later replied it is also not helpful to not have a sense of humor. The way his replies were put didn't seem humorous , more antagonistic. Like trying to intimidate me into giving up. I have recieved a lot of criticism on these sites for my contravertial questions and responces yet I still plod along trying to hopefully promote some useful idea.
You need a thicker skin. Philosophical questions, especially ones which have some baring on or implications for religious ontology, easily invoke emotional responses (and I do not mean just from theists). That's the nature of the beast.
It might be asserted that philosophy is an egotistical endeavour to begin with, so small wonder that philosophers might be a little above average in the ego department. A lot of the discipline of thinking has to do with getting a perspective on your own ego and feelings.
Do people try to intimidate others into giving up? I would agree that they do, but I don't think there's much to be done about that that doesn't involve throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Finally, there's the issue of projection, particularly with regard to people who champion positions opposed to your own. We all have some nastiness in us but tend to see it more easily in people we don't like. Unless someone slights you in some direct way ("You're an idiot..."), don't presume their attack is intended to hurt you, only your position. Even if it is intended to hurt you, this is the best presumption to make. Going back to the discipline of thinking, part of why ad hominem arguments are not acceptable is that they inevitably involve some form of arbitrariness tangential to the point at hand. Don't take the bait!
From that question you mention, it seems jobermark posted an answer to the question which you did not like. The first sentence was originally not very tactful ("I refuse to answer this question. I consider it evil. And I want to rant about that.") and probably are the cause of his downvotes. But other than that, when you read the rest of the answer it seems reasonable. He did alter the first sentence since you've posted this META question and it reads fine now. From this question alone I see no issue with the current state of things.
Do you have other examples you want to point out? Otherwise, I would encourage you to not take people's comments and criticism to heart. While some people have more tact than others, in the end I think most people here are good, honest people, and are not deliberately trying to insult you or make your time here miserable — they are at worst just offering their opinions but more often than not they are also trying to help you and other users learn things.
Perhaps we can have you chat with jobermark here so you can reach an understanding?