"Is the same as spitting in my face."

 I understand where you may perceive it that way but in the physical world we all live in nobody actually spit in your face.  For instance there would be no legal charges against Hovis for making you mad.  Observed reality would indicate no spit was on your face.

 As such you are willing to state you will commit physical violence upon somebody who did not physically attack you but verbally agitated you to the point of violence.

 I'm not judging that, do what you want, punch whoever you feel like, but to try to say you would never assault anyone you disagree with is contradictory don't you think?

"is entirely different than assaulting a person,
for a total insult"

 I see your point to a degree.  There is a difference between an insult and a disagreement.

 If I call someone a doofus that's an insult, if I say they teach minors to kill by means of firearm safety that, to me, is an observation that results in my opinion.

 None of the examples damage you.

 So to a degree I see your point, but I still think you are claiming you would physically assault people for making you mad, not because you are defending yourself from physical harm.  Or from any harm.

"We are in an escalating hyperbole..."

 That is true.

 I guess the simpler way to put it is I just don't see a reason to physically assault someone for being angry, no matter how they did it.  And in my brain, being angry is just a result of disagreeing with whatever just happened.