RationalWiki explains this in the way that you should act as if it is you that is being simulated and who possibly faces punishment. This is very close to what the LessWrong Wiki says, phrased in a language that people with a larger inferential distance can understand.

I'm pretty sure that I understand what the quoted text says (apart from the random sentence fragment), and what you're subsequently claiming that it says. I just don't see how the two relate, beyond that both involve simulations.

This is like a robber walking up to you and explaining that you could take into account that he could shoot you if you don't give him your money.

From your own source, immediately following the bolded sentence:

But of course, if you're thinking like that, then the CEV-singleton is even more likely to want to punish you [...] It is a concrete example of how falling for the just world fallacy might backfire on a person with respect to existential risk...

I don't completely understand what he's saying (possibly I might if I were to read his previous post); but he's pretty obviously not saying what you say he is. (I'm also not aware of his ever having been employed by SIAI or MIRI.)

(I'd be interested in the perspectives of the 7+ users who upvoted this. I see that it was edited; did it say something different when you upvoted it? Are you just siding with XiXiDu or against EY regardless of details? Or is my brain malfunctioning so badly that what looks like transparent bullshit is actually plausible, convincing or even true?)