I will now justify some jokes that I made four years ago.
Most of my work that you've praised so highly concerns improving software quality and the experience of programming. Wat is about one of the underlying causes of low software quality and unpleasant experiences of programming.
Specifically, none of that JavaScript behavior is undefined. Brendan Eich specifically chose to define all of those conversions in those ways. JavaScript was designed to do what the programmer doesn't want (silently perform nonsensical conversions) rather than what they do want (throw an error). There are reasons for this, but in its current use context that decision is not what we want. Many people watch Wat and go on to learn all of this; there are dozens of blog posts, Stack Overflow questions, etc. where the behavior in Wat is dissected in detail. For example: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9032856/what-is-the-expla... or http://blog.caplin.com/2012/01/27/the-why-of-wat/
Many programmers think that their tools work reliably; that they don't encounter problems often; that popular programming systems are fundamentally reasonable; that mistakes are always the programmer's fault. These people are wrong, to everyone's detriment. The easiest remedy is to show them, rather than tell them. Many people -- far too many now to count -- have said that Wat made them begin to realize how broken our tools are. That's a prerequisite to engaging with my (and others') longer-form work on improving things.
I could do a talk explaining all of this with examples and so on, but it would be full-length, not a lightning talk. My full-length talks get maybe 100k views, so the audience would be 5% of Wat's 2m views. Wat must be short, and therefore context-free, to work.