I see your point and I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I also think you're demonizing exposition a bit too much. Not because it's good, but I think you're hanging a bit too much on it. In terms of all bad dialogue being characterized by exposition, I would put it to you that dialogue can also be bad because the conflict being expressed is unnecessary or inauthentic.
Secondly, I don't think exposition is always insulting and I think you're taking it kind of personally. Sometimes a piece of information is important to the plot, but in terms of time it doesn't make sense to seed it subtly, or it doesn't warrant it. Maybe we actually have different standards for what counts as exposition. Because I consider anything that purely conveys information as exposition. So one character telling another where they need to go? That's exposition. To use star wars as an example, Obi Wan in Episode 4 telling Luke about his father? That's exposition by my standards. The scene around it is conveying more through nuance and is doing more than that. A whole SCENE that only exists for exposition and isn't doing anything else is a failure on the part of the writers because they couldn't find a way to inject it with more life and nuance.
In another example, I've been watching Star Trek: The Next Generation for the first time, and basically every episode has an exposition dump where they explain the weird sci fi anomaly of the week. I've been loving the show, but those pieces of exposition are absolutely necessary because there's simply no other way to get across the information that the audience absolutely needs to know.
