I do not see any actual argument being made, besides "I do not like those who waste their time discussing superlative technologies" which is not an argument and is not relevant to anything concrete anyway….. but your position still sounds to me like "you cannot play in my team because you are black / Xian / gipsy / gay / ... [insert some other thing unrelated to whatever the team does]". Don't you see that the only possible result can be alienating potential allies? If you do not want someone in your football team because he is Xian, at some point he will say "well then, screw your team". Is that what you want?
Of course, I have actually written thousands upon thousands upon thousands of words explaining why identifying with idealized outcomes yields sub(cult)ural movement-politics that, I have argued and offered up reasons to believe,  tend to derange practical foresight,  tend to facilitate True Belief and hierarchical political organizations,  tend to support elite-incumbent political interests (even when advocated by people who explicitly renounce such politics), and  tend to frustrate actual diverse democratic practices of stakeholder deliberation over technoscientific change.
But, in spite of all that Prisco doesn't see any argument happening here. What he sees is me saying "I don't like you." My position still sounds to [him] like "screw your team."
In other words, with perfect behavioral predictability according to the terms of the very critique of mine he is supposedly responding to (or at least discounting), Giulio Prisco's own sub(cult)ural futurism (he is a transhumanist-identified person) makes him literally unable to see anything but personal defamation where I am offering up structural critical analysis. Points  through  above, look to him more like racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs than analysis of technodevelopmental politics.
That is to say, he is sitting there at the keyboard in the livid glow of the screen, calmly, relentlessly, interminably proving one of my key points. No, Prisco can't see anything but sub(cult)ural politics in what I say, even though I am saying nothing of the kind. Sub(cult)ural Futurism is the organizational cul-de-sac he seems to be caught in, it's the lens that appears to be organizing his political intuitions here.
That is, of course, the very problem under discussion. It seems to me Prisco and other transhumanist-identified or Singularitarian-identified or Extropian-identified people (among countless other marginal but symptomatic sub(cult)ural movement-formations organized at the site of "technocentricity" or "futurism") all want to be on the "Team" that holds the Keys to History.
What I want, very much to the contrary, is for all the stakeholders to technoscientific change with whom I share the world to have a say in public decisions that affect them.
These are radically different political paradigms, it seems to me. This is a matter of something like Pan-Movement Politics as opposed to Democratic Politics. One of the key registers in which this difference plays out is in an opposition between Superlative Outcomes and Open Futures as a guiding organizational aspiration. (For Pan Movements, by the way, see Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism.)
My critique is not about Liking or Not Liking particular people. Perfectly likeable people can misunderstand politics at a fundamental level. I don't want "allies" for some Ideal-Futurological Implementation "Team," I want a world of Peers collaborating and contending with with me in democratic and emancipatory technodevelopmental social struggle toward open unpredictable futures. Education, agitation, and organizing is not the same thing as whomping up enthusiastic "members" for a would-be Pan-Movement.
I think the reason I have such trouble playing this discursive game with Sub(cult)ural Futurists is that we seem to be playing on two separate boards altogether and I don't think they have quite grasped this yet.