The main problem here is he jumps to a bunch of wrong conclusions and aggravates that with his tone.

And even after being shown an excessive amount of deference (even when he is wrong) he only tacitly admits his mistake and he's still grumbling about and focusing on the areas he still disagrees with.

If he admitted he was wrong with the same tone he concluded he was right, there wouldn't be an issue.

It's the one sided nature of his communication that's unhelpful.

Any code review that included the argument:

"Oh, I'm _soo_ special and pretty and such a delicate flower, that I want to flush the L1D on every task switch"

Is completely inappropriate. If you feel like that is somehow appropriate in a review then it is you who need to "step back and reexamine how you view communication from others and where you set expectations of thought process and culture matching your own".

I'd rather work with someone who makes good (or even bad) jokes about my code in reviews than a humorless bore who spends all their time policing everyone's appropriateness according to his own stodgy cultural standards.

Why not neither? Why not a person within the normal range of emotional intelligence, rather than either a humorless policer or an antagonistic smart person? Why are you defending his tone with such hostility?

The belief that one can or should judge another person (ie, on the normalness of their emotional intelligence) is quite boring, and is particularly annoying in coworkers. It is by definition fun to work with people who joke around, if one starts with thick skin, an open mind, and the confidence to occasionally be the butt of the joke.