So:
- Context doesn’t really matter to you
- How others are actually responding to your syntax/diction, your rhetoric, and your position(s) doesn’t really matter to you
Got it. Thanks.
Neither of these are true.
I think we can let the wisdom of crowds settle this one.
I’m fine with that. But I don’t think the people still posting in this thread are a representative sample of public opinion. Most of the people who are still posting here a year after this thread was started are me, the guy who wrote the OP, and the people who strongly disagree with what I wrote in the OP.
Just because people disagree with me doesn’t mean I’m wrong. People can disagree with somebody who tells them an uncomfortable truth.
You can’t possibly be dumb enough to genuinely not understand why using the expression “I pit over-the-top hysteria”—in your own thread title, no less—comes across as insulting and attacking proponents of the views you’re complaining about.
If you had simply wanted to express your disagreement with such views, you would have stated your opposition in a less contemptuous and disparaging way.
But no, you were puffed up and smug about what you perceived as your superior rationality and realism about the political situation, so you thought you’d flex a bit by starting a thread to openly sneer at what you considered the irrational overreaction of others. (Yes, calling something “over-the-top hysteria” is openly sneering at it, no matter how much you try to tap-dance around the issue now.)
And now you keep tugging at those goalposts by pretending that your only aim has been to “disagree” and to “tell an uncomfortable truth” and “not seek out arguments”. 
As though we can’t all still see your deliberately provocative choice of sneering insult right there in your thread title.
Don’t tell me how dumb I can be.
Fair enough. You can possibly be dumb enough to genuinely not understand why using the expression “I pit over-the-top hysteria”—in your own thread title, no less—comes across as insulting and attacking proponents of the views you’re complaining about.
Well, I’m pretty sure I’m not hysterical, as I don’t have a womb, and don’t ascribe to the belief that certain emotional or nervous conditions in women were caused by uterine dysfunction.
But I am pissed off at the latest FUCKING STUPID utterance from Trump, saying he’d going to charge tariffs on Canada for the smoke that is daring to come across the sacred and should-be-impermeable-to-smoke border. Because apparently, the Federal government of Canada (which owns 4% of Canadian forest land, most in National parks) is responsible for not properly maintaining the huge amount of boreal forest, the vast majority of which is completely inaccessible.
And I’m also pissed at the Republicans who refuse to say anything about this latest demented stroke-addled comment from Dear Leader, as well as the media who still continue to sane-wash this mental case, and not call it what it is.
Over the top? I don’t fucking think so. GET THAT TODDLER THE FUCK AWAY FROM MY COUNTRY.
I agree. I also don’t fucking think it’s over the top. Because Trump’s tariff policies and his threats against friendly countries are things that are actually happening in the real world.
You don’t really see the contradiction here, do you?
I picture him as being all mouth, no ears 
In April 2026, during the war with Iran, Trump posted on Truth Social stating, “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”. He previously threatened to destroy all of Iran’s energy and transport infrastructure, stating he could “take out” the entire country in one night and bomb it “back to the Stone Age”.
So many ways that one could reasonably take this.
Oh. No. Wait. There’s really only one.
No contradiction. I’ve consistently said that we should avoid arguing with or directing attacks against people who oppose Trump.
The right wingers who believed Trump’s stories about pet-eating immigrants were not part of the Trump opposition.
Now if there was somebody who was dumb enough to believe Trump back in 2024 about this story but who now opposes Trump in 2026 because of Trump raping children, I wouldn’t bring up the immigrant story. Because the guy is opposing Trump now and getting people to oppose Trump is more important than me getting a chance to insult somebody.
If this other guy brought up the immigrants eating pets story and told me he still believed it’s true, I would tell him I don’t share his opinion. But I wouldn’t call him an idiot. I would instead focus on our shared belief that Trump is a pedophile and should be removed from office for that reason.
So I can put you down as one of the people who thinks I’m wrong because Trump is planning on committing genocide and not one of the people who thinks I’m wrong because nobody has ever said Trump is planning on committing genocide?
You could, instead, read what I wrote, give it some thought, and then see how it bears on the totality of your argument.
It’s my considered opinion that you really haven’t considered… a damned thing that anybody has said.
But maybe you have an organic issue that makes that impossible.
Or maybe that was never your goal – you know: a thoughtful and good faith exchange of ideas.
Or maybe the very small number of outliers has totally blinded you to what the vast majority of anti-Trumpers are actually saying, and simultaneously robbed you of any remaining ability to avoid painting the rest of us with a single broad brush.
Or something.
But whatever it is… it really isn’t good. You’ve acquitted yourself horribly throughout the entirety of this thread, by which I mean: from beginning to end. You’re such a profoundly flawed messenger that the best intentioned of bright, thoughtful, and seasoned Dopers all seem to be having a very hard time embracing your message.
Congrats. Well played.
Why would I do that? I am an anti-Trumper.
I try to avoid calling people names, however, you appear to be a self righteous, self indulgent, little asshole. Hysteria is insulting and misogynistic. Just because you can’t/won’t admit it and stop using it doesn’t excuse you. Your weak excuses of well I’ve seen it used else where with no comment. I can assure you I would bring it up if I saw it. Pretending that we can’t limit words (how about the n word? do we limit that?) is just weak sauce.
You’ve been totally arrogant and dismissive of anyone else in this entire thread.
An aside: I don’t think trump plans to do any of those things, but he might stumble into one of them, or it might make him a buck. With this greedy idiot the possibilities are almost endless.
And that’s the thing. Out of the three examples listed by the OP, Trump has already expressed interest in two of the three. His remarks about “a whole civilization will die” is clearly in the realm of genocide. He has also expressed displeasure that he can’t just use nuclear weapons.
Will he go through with either of them? Hopefully not. But I also didn’t think he’d knock down a third of the White House, pardon the Jan 6 felons, or go to war with Iran. Yet, here we are.
Your assessment of the OP is spot on, by the way.
Let us discuss an alternative possibility. I’m not saying this is the case. Just consider it as a hypothetical.
Let us say that I don’t simply disagree that the use of the word hysteria is offensive. Let’s say that I declare that the word is not offensive. And I state that this standard applies to everyone.
So anybody who claims my thread title is offensive is objectively wrong and telling lies to tarnish my sterling reputation. I demand that these people admit they are wrong and apologize to me.
And when people refuse to give me the apologies that are due to me, I am justified in denouncing them and making personal attacks against them. They deserve it for being wrong and attacking me by not agreeing with what I have said.
Does this alternative point of view explain how I see the situation? And why I don’t feel obligated to apologize for holding an opinion that it different than some other people have?