Using strike-through text to communicate concepts is extremely powerful, both rhetorically, and humorously. It's a versatile medium for rationalwiki articles.
The more common way to deliver a point with it is to take something a nutter believes is true, and state it as fact, but cross it out, then replace it with actual fact. This communicates in a punchier way than any purely written way to convey the same "this thing is stupid, but the truth is X" conceptualization, while, at the same time being fully informative of both the views of the wiki and the bullshitter being lambasted. What it lacks in academic rigor, it more than makes up for in clarity.
The other common approach within the wiki is to present a brutal response, and then, in a pithy show of concern, provide a sanitized, intellectualized version of the same truth. It gives the reader the fun of "dunking" on a bad person/idea/thing, but also allows a more restrained and considered view to be presented as the primary position. While akin to the Motte and bailey argument, it acknowledges the flaw in the extreme and overly direct interpretation, in a way instantly recognizable as having a degree of contrition about the unfairness and extremity of the first(mostly true) take.
In conclusion, it's a powerful rhetorical tool, especially if its use is limited and it doesn't feel overdone or tired.
Use it wisely.
Disregard that, it owns, use it all the time.