Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I think you might be misreading the audience of the post. The majority of readers at LW subscribe to not-directly-causal decision theories under which they would cooperate with another rational agent in the one-shot PD; it may distract you, but not most. I agree with you, however, that it isn't the greatest analogy.
Are you talking about Superrationality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality )? Still strikes me as changing the rules and then pretending you've said something new about the original unchanged form. Kind of like saying you'd choose white in the "You must choose black game". I'm a bit disappointed if this kind of sloppy logic/mysticism is popular on LessWrong.
Yes, I'm talking about superrationality and decision theories that accommodate it, like evidential decision theory (you should make decisions that serve as evidence for the outcome you desire; e.g. you should cooperate, because doing so is evidence that a corresponding EDT-using rational partner will also cooperate) and Eliezer's pet timeless decision theory (roughly, your decisions should be treated as if you were making the decision for all sufficiently similar minds in the same situation.)