I have JavaScript off and I don't get that... I suppose JS off doesn't count as an ad-blocker, despite how effective it is.

(I know there are many more sites these days rendering simple static content with JS, possibly in an attempt to defeat/confuse others like me --- but my solution for them is either Google's text-only cache, or the Back button. Chances are I can find the same or even better content elsewhere; forcing me to jump through hoops ensures I'm not coming back.)

TBF, the article does admit as much. I also don't mind this sort of thing as long as it's a reasonable request (not sure if it is tho cause I block all javascript lol)

Can someone explain to me why they want to show you the ad even when they don't care if you look at it, let alone click on it? Are advertisers still paying for just showing the ad?

Yes, because just seeing the ad is effective in many cases; for example, brand advertising.

(Edit: note that even though you may not look at it directly, it is still effective)

Actually, I don't mind these. You can click them away if you want and it wont reappear (at least on TC, on spiegel.de the nagscreen reappears after 20s or so of reading time).