> this is not a description of reality, this hyperbole and stereotype of a kind only invoked by Trump supporters Oh, and something like "a group of people who

> this is not a description of reality, this hyperbole and stereotype of a kind only invoked by Trump supporters Oh, and something like "a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed?" isn't hyperbole? Or saying Trump supporters see immigrants as the horde storming the walls of Rome, and so on? And saying this kind of hyperbole is only invoked by Trump supporters (and I guess people who "fall prey" to their propaganda.... by having read Hannah Arendt and being reminded of something she said by an outrageous statement of Trump, without even being aware of anything any Trump supporter said about it, ever) isn't hyperbole, either. That's just sound logic, right? > before wallowing in their persecution complex and lecturing everyone else about why Trump's election is their fault. I actually asked you for examples of what you would consider a different reaction other than sweeping it under the rug. You talk a lot to not do that, while ignoring the rest. > it's odd how often Trump supporters seem to invoke their own chosen candidate's election in the pejorative like that. As if the only reason they voted for him was to punish society with his execrable presence Yeah, that was kind of the point of the Hannah Arendt quote. That's not "odd", you're just not thinking about it. > That's just it - plenty of people feel betrayed. Nah, that's not "just it", while that's all true: > Liberals and Democrats feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the enemy. City dwellers and people who don't work in the steel mills and coal plants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as part of the elitist establishment. Immigrants and the children of immigrants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the horde storming the walls of Rome, stealing their jobs and their culture. it's more importantly more bloat and emotional stage setting to avoid the question: Where does that some Trump voters correctly felt betrayed about some things, which you acknowledged, fit in? That was the question, and you just go on and on about anything but that, implying more of that "it's their fault they started it", while after mentioning "wallowing in their persecution complex" no less. I don't actually like reading stuff into stuff although I'm much better at it, but if I was so inclined, I would extrapolate from what you there, and what question it was a non-answer to, that because they see people with legitimate grievances as their enemy, it's fair game to do the same. But I'm not American, I don't care who started what, I'm not talking about fairness, I'm not talking about who is "better", I'm talking what I see now, about who should act smarter than they do. I'm talking about people who consider themselves intellectuals, and intellectually honest. > I don't need to give examples to counter obvious hyperbole Oh, because it's "obvious", since you can simply get hung up on the word "literally" and call it a day? You just say I ascribe an "inability to respond to the Trump supporters with anything but a snobbish gesture of elitist contempt", as if that was so laughable, you can't possibly be expected to give a counter example. How would I prove the absence of something? You say there is no absence, not an inability but an ability -- so show me an example of that. Because I literally, actually literally, have no idea what you could mean. When I say that as far as I saw, it was swept under the rug, I'm not playing to an audience, I'm being honest. > I never said society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, I said society's response to their exclusionary ideals is justified And the functional difference is what, exactly? > So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? I replied "to address the issues that are real", while mentioning that it's hardly just "their" issues, but you ignored that, too.