Brutal? Cut-throat? Hostile? Those are strong accusations.
I don't see anything wrong with leaving a comment if an answer is incorrect. Of course, the comments should be civil and constructive, but it's better to correct erroneous information than to lead our learning community astray with assertions that are not accurate.
As for "without providing a link to a dictionary site on each and every word you type," I think that's a bit of emotional hyperbole. That said, links to dictionaries or other credible references are encouraged here, and with good reason. When talking about language, anyone can say anything – but how can we judge if someone's assertion is factual or wrong?
For example, let's say someone asks:
Word for a choice between three options
My daughter is trying to choose between three jobs, none of which appeal to her very much. What is a good word to describe her situation? I've heard the phrase "between a rock and hard place," but that seems more appropriate for a choice between two bad options.
I could leave an answer like this:
You could consider using the word trilemma.
but trilemma is not a common word, and some folks might even wonder if it's an established word, or a neologism I've just made up. Why send everyone wondering about the legitimacy of my answer scurrying for their dictionaries? Why not just slake their curiosity and bolster my credibility at the same time? That's why a better answer would look more like this:
You could consider using the word trilemma. Wordnik defines this word as:
A situation that requires a choice among three options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive.
A state of things in which it is difficult to determine which one of three courses to pursue.
I might improve my answer even more by adding something about how common this word is, and, if it's not very common, demonstrate how it still gets used from time to time:
This word isn't nearly as common as dilemma (see the Ngram); however, that doesn't mean it never gets used. For example, a recent article called The trilemma of Big Tech reports:
The economist Dani Rodrik has framed the discussion around the state of the world economy as a trilemma, where hyperglobalisation, democratic policies and national sovereignty are mutually incompatible.
By including references and links to outside sources, we bolster the credibility of our assertions, and we make it easier for curious learners to learn more about the topic at hand.
As for how to have a better time here, I'd say this: regard any comments you get as though they were meant to help improve the site, and not meant as a personal attack. Many people leave comments hoping to nudge new contributors toward providing more sound and helpful answers, which improves the site as a whole. Don't think, "Why are they attacking me?" Instead think, "How can I use this feedback to improve my answer?"
I do not think it means what you think it means.