I didn't get the impression at all that mentioning US exceptionalism undercut the video creator's argument, or that they were really trying to argue that nation

I didn't get the impression at all that mentioning US exceptionalism undercut the video creator's argument, or that they were really trying to argue that nationalism isn't an effective way to establish order. The creator went to lengths to describe how powerful of a force nationalism is. The point is that it's remarkable how much effect it has, given that it's a concept without a clearly defined delineation (categorizing languages, shared history, culture, ethnicity, and even borders is a whole other thing) that didn't exist a few hundred years ago. Taking umbrage to how the author uses the concept of "existence" or "being made up" as basically a philosophical shorthand in the context of deconstructing what national identity really is seems overly semantic. Is the issue really just that it's controversial and click-baity to say "national identity isn't real" as a headline out of context? Because that's irrelevant to the thrust of what's being said.