It's called a rhetorical question.
It's a connotatively fallacious rhetorical question. Your "arguments expressed indirectly should not be rejected conditional on (lack of) merit" heuristic is flawed.
It's a connotatively fallacious rhetorical question.
As opposed to what? AFAICT, questions whose straight reading isn't implausible aren't rhetorical question.
The intended meaning of “Did evolution prime us to respond to it because it thought it would be funny?”, IIUC, is ‘obviously, evolution didn't prime us to respond to it because it thought it would be funny’ (which seems correct to me), with the implication that we respond to that behaviour for a different reason, in a context where Oligopsony was mentioning or alluding to a few plausible candidate reasons for that.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.