"Maybe people will understand my point better if I CRANK MY RHETORIC UP TO 11 AND UNCOIL THE FIREHOSE AND HALHLTRRLGEBFBLE"

Not necessarily even wrong. The higher the stakes, the more people will care about getting a winning outcome instead of being reasonable. It's a legit way to cut through the crap to real instrumental rationality. Eliezer uses it in his TDT paper (page 51):

... imagine a Newcomb's Problem in which a black hole is hurtling toward Earth, to wipe out you and everything you love. Box B is either empty or contains a black hole deflection device. Box A as ever transparently contains $1000. Are you tempted to do something irrational? Are you tempted to change algorithms so that you are no longer a causal decision agent, saying, perhaps, that though you treasure your rationality, you treasure Earth's life more?