I’d quibble with the framing being used here, as I’m not sure what “true scientists” and “citizens” means - I’d probably use the terms “expert” and “novice” but even then there are plenty of experts on iNat who are cordial and encouraging, so I think it’s best to focus on behavior rather than expertise level, even if the two can be co-occuring.
I also altered the subject of the topic to try and make it less conflict focused.
I think curtness can be OK. As others have said, many identiifers don’t have a lot of time so sometimes their comments can be brief and that could come off as condescending. I’m personally not a fan of it, but I think we need to remember that iNat is a worldwide community that includes people of varying backgrounds, languages, cultures, experiences, and neurodifferences, all of which influence how people communicate and respond to others. That’s why I think assuming others mean well is so important here. I would try to take curtness in stride if possible, although you’re always free to, in a civil manner, explain how it makes you feel - perhaps the other person doesn’t realize how their communication style affects others. Learning how to communicate better is pretty much a lifelong endeavor, IMO.
I do think “disempowering” comments are another matter. iNat really should be about teaching, learning, and encouraging everyone to improve their knowledge and curiosity about nature. In cases where comments are disempowering and condescending, especially if it’s a pattern, you can flag a comment or email help@inaturalist.org. Sometimes all it takes is someone (or someones) letting that person know how they’re coming off that encourages them to change it. If they’re willfully insulting, then that would be a violation of the Community Guidelines.