To me it screams aspergers and obsessions with the details. Sure, sound logic is good but it's not worth obsessing about -- to me at least.
It's worth being careful with your logic when any mistake can drastically alter the conclusions you make.
It's not a secret that the LW community leans towards the asperger and nerd clusters, but it is markedly much more grounded than you'd expect from the stereotype, not confusing the everyday reality with highly simplified idealized models of it.
This is an excellent example of how you've completely missed the point of LessWrong. Eliezer isn't criticizing the art - art exists to entertain, and if it does that that's fine. He's criticizing the thought processes that would lead us to think this is a plausible scenario - thought processes which are harmless when applied to SF, but which could be very dangerous when applied to some real situations.
Reality only exists within the individual human perception.
No, in fact common LessWrong opinion objects to the notion that reality exists in the mind. It is its perception that exists in the mind.
What you call pedantry, I call being careful with ideas, where mistakes can aggregate and make you reach very wrong conclusions.
Humans are independent actors subject to evolutionary and cultural forces.
That is an important observation in many LW analyses, but is a corollary, not a core principle, of rationality.
Everything else will follow accordingly. Everything less wrong covers stems from that. Human systems are complex but as a whole aren't that difficult to comprehend from core principles.
So it's better to say human systems are magical and mysterious and nobody could ever understand them?