I disagree that it isn't addressing the substance of the post.

I think it speaks to the heart of it. Please feel free to elaborate on why I'm wrong.

I believe the parent has posted and explained exactly what he meant.

But here's how I understood it: He was exaggerating a bit for the purpose of making his argument a little more punchy, and phrases like "most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA" are clearly meant to have an element of humor to them. You took his words at absolute face value without stopping to think that they might be meant as something else.

> and phrases like "most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA" are clearly meant to have an element of humor to them.

Its seems quite likely to be (insulting) hyperbole, but I don't see the humor. (I suppose it kind of sounds funny if you aren't used to the use of the term "donut" to refer to a reduce-size, limited-speed spare tire, since talking about swapping a tire for a donut would in that case be an absurdity.)

It is a rather wry sense of humor being displayed here.

I love wry humour, but being insulting with wry humour is still being insulting. You don't get a pass on abuse "because rhetoric".

Isn't being insulting a valid part of humor? And I would hesitate to call such a mild joke "abuse".

Given that the GP is complaining of feeling excluded by such things, it's hypocritical to do the same in reverse. The GP is basically deriding all people on high salary as being pseudo-intellectuals.

The problem I have with the GP is not the literal words (I have no problem with style), but that he's complaining of being stereotyped while spreading a stereotyped anti-intellectual message.

Now see, this is a valid point that I feel has substance. His style, for me, is not very important in comparison.

Hyperbole serves no master. Employ it to bolster a point, and we might use our fancy coastal intelligences to reason that the point is probably weak.

Or, you might laugh? It is funny.

Taking this single little point and then using it to systematically reject the whole argument is an example of what the parent was ranting about.

Who rejected anything? This is more hyperbole. I stress, that does not strengthen an argument. It is an extra-factual means of convincing people via emotional channels that an argument is stronger than it is.

>and we might use our fancy coastal intelligences to reason that the point is probably weak.

You have rejected his argument right there.