People with technical backgrounds (scientists, engineers, etc.) have already internalized many of the key ideas as part of their education. It should be possible to convey 99% of the remaining value to us with only 1% of the wordcount. Has anybody worked on making such a resource?
In my view, the two most important ideas are EY's idea about what the two alternate neural architectures "look like from the inside" for concepts, and the combinatorio-spatial metaphor for alternative regimes of concepts.
People are not special. People are humans; humans are primates; primates are animals.
If genes are like blueprints for constructing life-supporting structures, then memes are like blueprints for thinking viral ideas.
All computation is symbolic.
...That should be enough to let people skip all of the philosophy, at a first pass. The main problem is that folks don't actually absorb these slogans on their own; the slogans require support from a library of lore and learnings. It is obvious, once one's mind has the right scaffolding, to see that everything and everybody is wrong about everything, but actually setting up that scaffolding is unique to every different reader.
I've found that I, too, need to write a fictional story set inside a fictional universe akin to ours, if I want to communicate certain non-fictional abstract mathematical ideas. People cannot grasp some concepts without some sort of path which leads to the concept, and humanity paves those paths with words.
Once you have nearly a million words about what's wrong with people, I suppose it needs a little narrative sauce or it'd be massively discouraging.
In this circumstance I would recommend not engaging at all.
The parent is not settling matters with a fallacy, he's providing branches we can investigate to judge if Less Wrong is worth reading. Should we censor facts because they might be classified as argument from authority?