I never understood the crazy obsession of trying to convince the other side to joing your POV.
Its the same obsession w the term "rebuild" or "retool" for a mangemebt
Who really cares as long as they win the cup during their tenor.
Otherwise its a failure like all the GMs before.
It's more of an obsession with wanting people to be rational and a frustration that comes when people defy reason. When it comes to something mostly subjective, like what movies people like, I agree that there's not as much of a point (although, even then you can make a similar argument, to a degree), but whether or not a GM is doing a good job isn't all that subjective, and when it seems clear that a GM is doing a terrible job, but people insist otherwise, there's an obsessive need to attempt to ask/show someone if that reasoning holds up against scrutiny. If the fans are not reasonable, then the GM doesn't have to be reasonable. It harms accountability, which harms a team's chance of success. Whether or not a GM wins a cup in their tenure isn't purely random, there's a rational process that improves those odds, so of course it matters whether or not fans are rational.
Personally, I think that we should all behave that way.
Similar ideas can be applied to the rebuild vs. retool argument as well. To the people who think that a rebuild is the most sensible course of action, being in denial of the need for a rebuild and insisting on a retool shows that a GM is failing to accurately assess the state of the team, and unwilling to do what is necessary to optimize success. So of course you would want to argue about that point.
We aren't all correct in our assessments, of course, but we should damn well argue about it with others to get as close as we can.
Everyone simply being blindly satisfied with their first impressions and "respecting each other's opinions" so much that we never stepping on each others toes would be a nightmare.