> In other words, it was purposedly overdramatized and made sound more radical than you really believe, right?
I mean that it is a manifesto in a very specific genre sense, written like the other manifestos, (like the other ones in the jam, or historical examples that I mentioned earlier like the Dogme 95, Futurist, or Dada, Surrealist manifestos, etc.), where provocative statements are meant as a rallying cry to reimagine an existing artistic movement or define and codify an emerging one. If you don't like the manifesto, then don't sign on to it! It's really that simple. Like, you don't go to a Dadaist and say "I want you to make two versions of your Dadaist poem: one where it's made randomly from cut out words like you suggest, and one where the words are in order they were in the newspaper you took it from, and if the second poem is objectively better, then you'll give up your art movement, right?" It just seems to be a category error to me.
But I will admit some confusion here as to what your rhetorical goals are or which specific windmill you're tilting at.