Are Conflicting Ideas of How to Discuss Things Enough to Start Flame-Wars?

Okay.

These are on shared fora. No, say, replies to specific blog posts.

Question 1:

Someone else compares one act of violence to another. I mention that the other can be lethal. They start insulting me for bringing up “bullshit.” I explain that this is a personal trauma. They then switch from insulting me for bringing up “bullshit” to complaining they can’t talk about the one type of violence because, whatever comparison they use, people will start talking about the other kind of violence...

Now I get the impression that they really don’t want discussions to wander what they consider “off-topic.”

And I ... I expect most discussions to wander into related topics, and I am offended by what came off as a dismissal of the other violence, and by the insults.

Now we seem to have very different ideas of how to discuss things. How can I address this?

Question 2:

Someone else uses a favorite insult. I mention that the insult is associated with forced sterilization campaigns. They double, triple, or quadruple down, and sometimes I’m banned from the forum.

Question 3:

Someone links to a harmful site. I mention the migraine, or seizure, risks, as appropriate. Things go downhill, and sometimes I’m banned from the forum.

Not really a question. Just a vent.

Okay, I’m kinda wondering if this is related to an objection to “off-topic” matters... and if so, how can I point out that these attitudes, and policies and practices which reflect them, still hurt people?

P.S. I’m using the meta tag because this is a meta discussion. Nothing to do with that Zuckerburg thing.