Where the problem lies is the way you put forward that viewpoint, as if it's incontrovertible fact that it is indeed bad writing and junk cinema and that anyone who doesn't agree with your incontrovertible fact is wrong
If I think there is a strong case for something, I don't mind saying so. Not that I particularly care whether it's "the minority opinion" or not, but what I'm pointing out is not that the majority of people are wrong to have been entertained by STID
(though there are some details that bugged me, I was reasonably so for the time I was in the theatre). It's that the majority of its defenders should recognize that the terms in which they're typically defending it (don't overthink it, I don't care about the details etc.) should tell them that they enjoyed it as
Which, as I explained at some length, is not wrong in itself, it's perfectly okay to enjoy junk cinema and we all have our fixes in that regard. If some such fixes don't last as long for some of us as others, that's okay too. The problem comes when you start demanding that everybody else regard your junk fix as caviar and denouncing them as crazy or dishonest or "elitist" for not doing so. So I do think a bit more realism and forthrightness about what the appeal of these films are is in order.
I believe it was you, yourself, who pointed out there is no "accepted guidelines for what is good or bad writing" and that writers have been debating it for decades
What I said is that there are "rough" standards for good writing which have been chewed over for decades. (Things like "your plot points should be explicable," for instance.) Meaning it is not a simple example of stamping one's feet and declaring that what one says is right, you have to be able to actually make a case. That writing isn't math doesn't mean it has no standards of quality at all that aren't purely personal.