What was disingenuous about asking, what have these college kids actually done to exert control over your speech?
He doesn't seem to have answered beyond calling your question "disingenuous." But I'll tell you why
I think the question is disingenuous in this context. First, because it's a loaded question and an implicit straw man. I don't think he ever argued that these students could affect his personal speech but the way you frame the question implies that he did.
Most importantly, however, is the way the question seeks to narrowly define the concern he expresses. It's as if you're suggesting that if he can't articulate how college students being hostile toward the expression of certain opinions affects his personal speech, there is no reason to be concerned about it. It's the equivalent of suggesting that there is no reason for someone to be concerned about gay rights if they themselves aren't gay because after all, it doesn't affect them personally. That is not a fair standard for defining what we as individuals can find problematic in society.
I'm not really trying to defend Starbuck here as I disagree with many things he says and some things he says in this thread, most significantly for his tendency to blame liberals for practically all bad behavior on the part of conservatives.
But much of the discussion in this thread isn't entirely constructive. Eskimospy made the outstanding point earlier that fringe voices are often amplified in order to support broad generalizations about opposing tribes. I would add that both sides do this, but the right does it most often and has practically elevated it to a fine art.
The core question here is entirely factual in nature. It is,
to what extent has extreme leftism on college campuses resulted in students embracing such
illiberal notions as feeling safe is more important than feeling free to speak one's mind. What we have in terms of factual evidence is something in between a few anecdotes where a kooky student says something idiotic and real population wide data showing a pervasive problem. It's a fairly sizable clutch of anecdotal evidence, enough to warrant further inquiry but not enough to be definitive. But that, nonetheless, is the real issue here, not whether a given poster's personal speech is being directly affected by this.