I think you meant figuratively. If he was literally the Grinch, he'd be a fictional character. 
But for added fun with English, literally can mean figuratively.
Isn't it great?
We flatheads do face serious problems with our theory, but rather than crying about conspiracies and posting videos on YouTube that make us seem like weirdos, we're better off admitting that we don't have all the answers.
The issue is that when you do that, people will ask then why should people think Earth is flat? (especially with your latter justification for FE).
It's true that we are a diverse group with very different theories, but round-Earthers have lots of different theories also. Theirs are certainly less diverse than ours, but they don't agree, for example, on what the center of the supposed ball is like, or what causes the magnetic field. And in my lifetime they changed their minds about tectonic plates, and in cosmology they changed their minds about things like expansion and even the idea that there are other galaxies. They still have no idea what dark energy is, though it apparently comprises 70% (?), 80% (?) of the universe, and they don't even have any idea what dark matter is, though it is 95% of what's left.
The issue is how these are connected to shape.
REers just have the one globe, with the continents and cities and the like in the one set of positions. Sure, there are various versions of accuracy, such as a perfect sphere or an oblate spheroid, but no one claims the sphere is perfect rather than simply an approximation.
FEers have multiple different models. Some have the NP at the centre. Others have the south pole. Others have roughly 0,0.
The expansion of the universe is basically irrelevant to if Earth is round or not. Yes, there are issues with how people like tying RE to basically all of science with FE having lots of different aspects going against mainstream science, but a lot is still relevant to the shape of Earth.
Yes over time they improve the theory, but it is one consistent theory which is improved and then accepted (note this even basically works for the first RE model being developed from the ancient FE model). For FE, they basically throw out one model and start again with a completely different one.
With uncertainties like that, it makes sense to believe that the Earth is flat, and that when they finally figure out dark energy and the Grand Unified Field theory they'll understand why.
No it doesn't. Firstly, this ties back into FEers not having all the answers.
Your argument is effectively:
There are 2 competing models, X and Y.
X can't explain Z.
Therefore Y is true.
The issue is that Y can't explain it either.
In order for that to be a valid argument you need Y to actually be able to explain it.
In all cases that I know of, RE explains things which FE can't, rather than the other way around.
That is why it makes sense to accept Earth is round and no sense to accept Earth is flat, and why FEers are so opposed to admitting there are issues with the FE model or things FE can't explain.
If you think you have the answer, feel free to provide it.
So cognitive dissonance can affect us all, flatheads and globeheads alike.
Yes. Even REers can make an argument they think is good while being horribly flawed, and then completely ignore the issues with it pretending the FEers just reject it because they don't want to admit Earth is round.