The analysis of the samples helps to reinforce a fundamental conclusion. Apologies always come after the barrage of criticism. But the damage is already done. The hate speech to Andalusian as a linguistic variety reveals the crudest intention of the person who issues it, which is no longer social disdain, but personal (in the news that bring Magdalena Álvarez or Trinidad Jiménez into focus); and contempt for a society that votes for a certain party, the socialist, or for a certain faction of that party, those who support Susana Díaz; without forgetting, of course, the linguistic obstacle that supposes the access from the outskirts to the metropolis. Scorn and contempt as a form of hatred. It is not strange, thus, that this hate speech to Andalusian has been dealt with in areas such as politics, to serve as a tool with which to confront the adversary and question their ability to lead a certain institution (no matter if it is a party, a ministry, an autonomous region...); or take government action. With a sympathy that is still derogatory (and therefore hateful), the foreigner smiles at the Andalusian for their way of speaking and associates them with a way of being, not precisely prestigious from the point of view of social tradition. Politicians, aware of this component of the collective imaginary, exploit it in order to collect revenues. As a result, as a weapon of confrontation, the non-Andalusian politicians attack those who are, to despise their way of speaking and, at the same time, their political skills. The national parties, which usually have members from any Spanish region among their ranks, must work hard to, on the one hand, exonerate the member who emits the outburst and, at the same time, reprimand them for the snub. Simultaneously, the provincial offices of the parties react in different ways depending on who attacks.

All the examples go in the same line. Keeping also in mind that, taking advantage of the circumstances, the defence of Andalusian is used to air the dirty linen of the adversary in public and thus try to embarrass the opposition with issues related to economic development, social rights, etc. We can see this exemplified precisely in the news on the management of the snowfall by Magdalena Álvarez, which includes other actants who decided to participate in the controversy, such as Gaspar Zarrías, a prominent Andalusian socialist, to accuse the conservatives in general of contempt to Andalusia; and in particular Javier Arenas, at that time President of the Andalusian conservatives, to whom, Zarrías rebuked for lacking authority in his party (abc, 01.11.2019); or Antonio Sanz, who at that time was Secretary-General of the pp in Andalusia, and while rejecting the statements of his party colleague, Montserrat Nebrera, he criticized the management of the opposition, which was represented by Magdalena Álvarez, the management that was the one that really discredited the Andalusians –but not because she is Andalusian, but because she is a socialist– just as he criticized her vain and arrogant character, to finally lash out at Gaspar Zarrías, accusing him of throwing up a smokescreen to hide the unemployment data in Andalusia (ibidem). As it can be seen, these topics have no relation to the way of speaking, if it were not for the execution of an orchestrated plan to relate them from politics, the same thing that happens with other aspects, such as the economic ones (we have seen it in the column by Lola Pons Rodríguez, vid. n.5) or the educational ones, of which unfortunately we also have numerous representative samples.7