A rhetorical "nobody" isn't the same as a mathematical "there does not exist". Under any normal circumstance, "nobody eats soap" is a claim we would regard as true, even though there are exceptions (https://www.vox.com/2018/1/4/16841674/tide-pods-eating-meme-tide-pod-challenge).

The "absolute" used here is used in a sensible way as part of normal language. If you want to contest the claim, you can't just find a single instance where it happened backed up by the supposition (made without evidence) that it wasn't unintended overreach--you need to actually address the substantive part of the claim, which is that this motivation is basically irrelevant to outcomes.

You can tell from the context of the writing that Steve isn't taking a radically absolutist approach but rather is employing conventional usage of absolute language to indicate that the alternative position has so little relevance that it need not be taken seriously (not that it literally does not exist).