It's a way to communicate with less analytical people without acting like a clueless sledgehammer that alienates people.

There are other ways to not be a clueless sledgehammer. Speaking of which...

Incorrect. You missed the point.

Ahem.

What is true, and what is needful to say to the person in front of you, are two different things. The difference between them is not necessarily, not even usually, one of truth and falsity, but of what truths to express, and how to express them in such a way that when the other person hears then, what they hear is true.

We might both disagree with "Serbia is the greatest country in the world" but that's not a very good argument to communicate to a Serbian who holds that view as deeply true.

Why would I be arguing with him at all about that?

If you can get someone who asserts their opinion is "true" to grant it's true to them but not empirically true you've already won half the battle in helping them think and communicate better.

I am more interested in thinking and communicating better myself than in helping anyone else to. It is not that I do not care, but that I have no business doing so unless particular circumstances make it necessary. Just because I hear someone talking in terms I think mistaken is not a reason for me to jump in and start counselling them on epistemic hygiene. I do not play this person on the net or anywhere else.

Alternatively, do the Spock thing

If you regard valuing the simple virtue of truth as "the Spock thing", why are you here?