It's hard for me to draw any conclusion other than that the LessWrong community has become too stupid to communicate with. It would be one thing if people didn't see the phenomenon described here as universal and important. They would be wrong, but understandably wrong, the kind of wrong you can engage with.
But what happened instead, judging from the comments, is that most readers were unable to identify this as a post written adopting a fictitious persona, to get inside the head of someone who would deliberately use such techniques. That autistic-level literal-mindedness, not trying to see what ideas a post presents, not sitting back and taking a few seconds to try framing it different ways, but simply diving in looking for some proposition to object to, is what is ruining LessWrong.
I don't think Less wrong is too stupid to communicate with, but I do think a weird social norm against saying things in interesting ways has taken over. It reminds me a bit of Wikipedia, where the enforced style is very dry and dull--without having the advantage of being simple and easy to understand.
Recalling first that life is a zero-sum game, it is immediately obvious that the quickest and easiest path to success is not to accomplish things yourself—that's a game for heroes and other suckers—but to tear down the accomplishments and reputations of others. Destruction is easy. The difficulty lies in constructing a situation so that that destruction is to your net benefit.
The problem with destruction is that it invites retaliation. Even when your talent for lies, slander, and other dirty work is superior to your opponent's, he will still manage to cause you difficulties. When there is a third, uninvolved party, all they need do is stay out of it until you and your opponent have beaten each other down, and they emerge the winner.
It is therefore crucial that you prepare the way for your destructive ascent by polarizing the field into two camps. There must be no third parties or positions. If there are three political parties, you must begin by crushing the weakest. If there are three or more possible opinions on a matter, you must introduce terminology that conflates them and makes it appear that there are only two. Uniting your opponents is not beneficial, but making them appear to be united is, as it allows your attacks to strike them all at once. The vicious arts can thrive only when the apparent choices are first narrowed down to two.
(The mirror tactic is to narrow down the number of choices to one, and present them as two. We shall cover that in Dark Arts 201.)