Perhaps the reason that the generic recommendation, for a smooth, flat and extended direct sound FR (and a tonally consistent reflected sound signature), is attracting criticism, is on the basis of "who are you to tell me what I prefer: we are all individuals with specific tastes etc." Sounds familiar?
This criticism overlooks the fundamental reason for the generic prescription: that we are hearing real sound sources, such as voices and instruments, every day, and apparently, when tested, we pretty much universally prefer it when reproduced music sounds like that.
To claim you prefer it any other way is a bit like saying you don't like the sound of reality and wish it sounded different. Our brains, it seems, are hard-wired not to think like that: instead, we think the sound of reality is comfortable, and digressions induce discomfort. It's logical really.
The main exception would be the Uncanny Valley Effect which, IIRC, can be induced with reproduced audio, but requires massive banks of speakers in a 3D field and matching processing. We don't approach that situation with current audio technology.
To reiterate: I suspect that the name-calling ("elitist!" etc.) comes from the feeling that one's individuality is being denied. But individuality exists side by side with human commonality, and this just happens to be something that lies in the commonality realm, like not being able to hear 100 kHz or see X-rays. Our individuality is applicable to other aspects, like what music we individually prefer.
cheers