if the critique [of superlativity] was more understandable and contained no name-calling, [transhumanists and singularitarians and so on] would have no choice but to focus on developing a rebuttal to your critique
I think you are a bit over-optimistic here. Also, I think there is a deeper Two Cultures sort of problem afoot:
Many people who buy into what I call superlativity regard only what they call "technical" critiques as "understandable" and "worthy" of rebuttal, but such "technical" accounts concede techno-utopianism far too much ground and too many of their most problematic assumptions to allow relevant critique real purchase in my view.
Further, my own focus is rhetorical and cultural -- which seems to me not only relevant but actually key to understanding the problems with especially organized "identity-movement" formations of superlativity (which I call sub(cult)ural) -- and the simple truth is that this very focus itself seems to inspire the charge of name-calling and incomprehensibility.
One needs the patience of a saint to overcome these sorts of structural barriers, and it is hard for me to pretend that Robot Cultists really deserve that kind of effort (especially since patience of this kind is more likely than not to receive no reply but "tl;dr" anyway -- believe me, I know).
As I have said many times, one reaches the point at which the only sensible thing is to ridicule the ridiculous in the hopes that its dangerous nonsense will be bulldozed harmlessly into the margins, the better to make room for the more reasonable to proceed in the clash of their opinions.