You should clarify that it's the new King of the Hill for workstation and productivity usage model but only in the traditional consumer space. Dual Xeon or a Xeon with more cores smashes it for productivity, while for gaming a $289.99 6700K will beat it easily. So let's not throw around the King of the Hill phrase when a $1723 CPU is nowhere close to being the best. Let's face it, in the old days of Extreme Edition of Pentium 4 or Nehalem, it actually meant it was the fastest in all tasks in the same traditional consumer space. Besides, as I already said, it's actually possible to build a 6900K + 6700K gaming system in the same case. Such a setup would be far more beneficial for someone doing productivity/content creation work + gaming. If you look at a lot of the top YouTubers in our realm, a lot of them have 2 PCs exactly for that reason.
Even if I were in the market to spend $1800 on a CPU, the 6950X makes no sense to me, and so far no one has provided a solid coherent logical rebuttal how it actually does. I understand that everyone is free to buy what they want and no logical rebuttal is needed but then let's accept that 6950X is an emotional purchase then.
Using the logic you outlined above, Intel might as well raise the price of a 12 core SKL-X to $1999, then 14-core Cannonlake-X to $2199. Who cares right because the same people buying $1723 6950X will still buy it.
Who cares how others spend their money. It's the king of the hill in terms of Intel's consumer product stack of chips. It has the most cores and is the most expensive.
No need to split hairs and tell the guy he's wrong. Everyone already knows you know everything. You don't need to keep on repeating it. Jesus, let a guy enjoy his stuff