I roll my eyes at you rolling your eyes. It's super-effective.
Intimidation is particularly bad for this. The other social skills as well. It takes a minute to intimidate someone without a feat. You can only intimidate one person at a time without a feat. Intimidation doesn't last longer than a scene without a feat. This can be copy-pasted across the other social skills. So the canard has feathers, it quacks, walks and flies.
These are all coercion, and the whole "takes a minute" is wholly negotiable within the rules themselves. What it allows is that you can
always do it in 6 seconds, or you can
always hit multiple people instead of one. I've always found this sort of thing pretty okay, and gives me an idea of how something like coercion should generally work. I like it more for Diplomacy, actually, because I can put some generalized time costs on people trying to work different rooms.
Similarly, the whole "intimidation doesn't last longer than a scene" is largely meant to put rather logical roleplay limits on the table for a GM to use: you can intimidate people into doing something around you, but you can't make that last without something else at play, and there are always potential consequences even on a success. If your GM decides it's enough, that's fine, but you aren't
entitled to indefinite influence over someone due to one check. Things like Lasting Coercion change that to a Week and a Month, which tells you what sort of skills you need to be a criminal kingpin.
To me, I like that stuff because not only does that help me understand how they intend it to work, I can start conceptualizing successes, failures, and different sorts of exceptions in my head before I get into play. YMMV, of course.
You can't start a rumour without a feat, and so on, and so forth. There's an argument that you could actually dispose of the skill system and just go with skill feats that spell out what your character can do.
You absolutely
can. We've (not you specifically, the general we) had this discussion before, and if I'm frustrated it's not because of you but that this is always something that gets brought up. The only thing the feat does is make it so that you only have to make one roll and spend 2 hours (or a day, if you're the Dandy) doing it. That does not preclude you from spreading rumors, it just means that you always have this method open to you. If your GM says you can spread a rumor in an hour, that's fine. With the Dandy, they can just
do that.
I feel like the problem is that because PF2 has so many of these rules that people think that these are the only ways to do something, but that's not really the case. You can still judge things by the situation, but these feats should be looked at as
empowering the individual rather than
excluding the masses: If you have a situation where someone could intimidate someone with a few words or scare a group, that's fine. But they aren't
entitled to it like the feat holders.