That might be a valid (albeit ironically immature) response, except that the license is self-evidently satirical.

That's the thing about satire, it's not always self-evident (to everyone).

I see it as self-evidently satirical because RMS wouldn't object to being singled out; he'd object to the license not qualifying under his definition of free software.

(Being absurd and arbitrary, it's also funny in the same way as The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers was in an early Simpsons episode.)

It is not self-evident that it is satirical. It seems malicious enough to me.

If you really can twist your brain into ascribing malice to those words, it's not surprising that the self-evident satire is completely lost on you.

Imagine if the license chose Bill Gates as the exclusion. Would it seem more satirical to you then? If so, why? What if it were George W Bush?

The heart of satire is ridicule, so malice and satire can indeed live quite nicely side-by-side.

To be honest, RMS himself has demonstrated behaviors similar to that of a small child at times.