I've asked a couple of times in the comments for some evidence of the problems you cite, in particular the claims about "hostility", but I see it's not forthcoming. It's easy to toss claims like that around, but it's much more difficult to actually justify them. That's what will probably lead this very question to be closed as "not constructive"—not because your concerns are invalid or unwelcome, but simply because there's nothing of value presented in your question that we can use to address the problems. Please understand that I am not trying to deny that there might possibly be a problem of treating [new] users with hostility, but I simply do not know how we can work to address those problems without some evidence and how and where it is occurring.
Sometimes we all get frustrated and say mean things to one another. You probably do it, and I definitely do it. That doesn't make it right, it just makes us human. Hopefully no one gets their feathers too ruffled up because of what someone says to them online.
However, I do feel like I should point out that if you see someone being a dick to someone else, you should use your flags to bring that to the attention of our friendly moderators. Despite their high reputation scores, they are invested in the community and want what's best for everyone involved.
The BIG worry though is that then many people never get off the ground because their questions when they first start are deemed "dumb, redundant, and/or vague".
I agree that questions should not be closed simply because they are "dumb", or in particular, "too easy". Others have proposed a close reason of this very nature, but I oppose it, and it hasn't been implemented yet. Currently, as long as the question fits our general guidelines, it is fine to ask.
By "redundant", I suppose you are referring to questions that get closed as duplicates of another question. I don't understand what's wrong with this practice, or why it deters or frustrates people. Whenever I ask a question and it gets closed as a duplicate, I'm happy because it means that I get my answers without even having to wait. Someone else thought my question was so good that they already asked it, thus saving me a lot of trouble and effort. I get good answers that have been thoroughly vetted by the community without even having to wait. As for the rest of the Internet, there's little point in having the answers scattered out all over the place. When I go searching for the answer to a question, the first place I land is usually on Stack Overflow. And I like not having to click through 100 duplicates just to read all of the wisdom that is available. So no, I think questions that get closed as a duplicate are a win all the way around.
"Vague" questions are a big problem. They get closed pretty quickly as "not a real question", and for good reason. The simple fact is that our system doesn't work very well for this type of question. I'm not going to deny that programmers of all levels have questions like this—stuff that they're either not knowledgeable about or experienced enough in to phrase into a coherent question. It would be great if we could read people's minds and answer these questions. But the technology just isn't that advanced yet, and a Q&A site like this one actively works against answering questions where you have to do a lot of guessing. The FAQ is pretty clear about our requirement that you ask specific, answerable questions about real programming problems. Yes, other types of questions exist. Yes, they might be perfectly legitimate questions. But no, we do not and cannot handle them. We simply can't do everything, and it's best that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that we can.
So they get discouraged and don't engage in which case no one wins.
This may very well happen; I have no evidence to offer in support of either scenario.
However, I would point out that there's no reason for this to happen. At least, that is to say, discouragement is not the inevitable result of having one's question closed.
The point of closing a question, especially one closed as "not a real question", which is defined in part as one which is overly vague or not answerable in its current form, is to put that question temporarily in limbo so that it can be revised, without attracting any answers. When the question is revised (either by its original owner or another experienced member of the community) to something that is answerable, it can be re-opened without any old, now-obsolete answers lingering around.
example of condescension is @random's comment.
A couple of problems with this:
This site you've landed on is Meta. It is the appropriate place to ask questions like the one you've asked, but it is also a very relaxed place with a very quirky sense of humor and slightly different standards than the main site. See this question and this other one for more specific details.
That's random. He does that, and sometimes the rest of us try to copy his swagga. The comment was intended to be funny, not offensive. At worst, it's self-deprecating, which doesn't seem very condescending to me.