Not all API guidelines are about visual style. This guideline--which I've cited from three distinct sources and heard about from several more---is an indication of a language deficiency. The convention described in the guideline is workaround around that deficiency, and that's about as strong a signal as you're going to get that a syntax is causing "actual harm."
It is counterproductive. Tossing around the word "charade" belittles the effort of everyone participating in the proposal process. That is not how we want this community to operate.
This proposal attempts to solve a problem. Many people have agreed that the problem is real, even if they don't like the solution being proposed. Or maybe it's a problem that shouldn't be solved. That's why we're here---to find the best solution for the language, and it's very likely to be in this thread somewhere.
Feel free to argue either way---toward a better solution or no solution---and we'll better off having had the discussion, but do not assume that others are operating in bad faith.
Doug