I think you are making the mistake of assuming that because something is an important motivation for a class of things, it must also be a good use for every instance of that class.
Sometimes motivations are misguided, and sometimes instances aren’t well fit for major motivations of their broader class.
> (...) it must also be a good use for every instance of that class.
You, and OP, failed to present a single argument supporting the thesis that modeling languages in general, and UML in particular, are "lunacy and a massive red flag."
> Sometimes motivations are misguided (...)
Not only did you failed to support anything in the original anti-diagram rant, now you also tried to support generalizations with hypothetical corner cases involving misuses, which is an absurd argument to make.
So not only do you have zero substance for show with regards to the original anti-UML rant, you also resort to using vague, unsubstantiated strawmen.
This is to be expected. Like many discussions involving technical aspects, generally detractors come from positions of opinionated ignorance.
> You, and OP, failed to present a single argument supporting the thesis that modeling languages in general, and UML in particular, are “lunacy and a massive red flag.”
I failed to support that thesis because I never endorsed it. Pointing out a flaw in a counterargument is not endorsing the argument it is deployed against.
Sometimes motivations are misguided, and sometimes instances aren’t well fit for major motivations of their broader class.