It was definitely hyperbole. Purposefully hyperbolic.
And I'm not sure it's entirely untrue.
Look, I'm not equating bad GM-ing to any sort of actual social issue requiring philosophical examination or legal redress. But would anyone argue that the "jerk GM" isn't basically a foundational trope of the hobby? The most common narrative in all of RPG-dom goes something like this: "I left college/moved away and had to find a new game group. And it took 3 or 4 tries until I could find a GM who wasn't a jackass."
Or the converse, "My GM moved away and I had to find a new game group, and it took 3 or 4 tries until I could find a GM who wasn't a jackass." How many people on this board
became GMs in the first place because they were tired of playing RPGs with jerks?
I can't think of a single other hobby that comes with it a near 100% probability that at some point, participants will be forced to experience emotional dysfunction, awkwardness, and pain. Why? Because even if it happens infrequently, too often the primary locus of control for the shared social dynamic---for close to 50 years now!---ends up in the hands of emotionally stunted misanthropes. In some ways, it's basically the Murphy's Law of the hobby---"No matter how bad your current GM is, the one in your next group will be worse."
And yes OF COURSE there's the flipside of good GMs. GMs who make the hobby a joy and pleasure, who have given us some of the best social, competitive, dramatic, euphoric moments of our lives.
But RPGs are unique as a hobby in this way. Model airplane fliers and hobby fisherman don't face this dynamic, and even in the off chance that they run into a jerk, leaving them behind is as simple as walking/boating 100 yards farther away and continuing to do what they've always done.
The thing is, I completely agree that a hard "No" has a place in GM-ing. It's crazy to think otherwise. In any organizational hierarchy, the final power/arbitration of decision making has to rest
somewhere. And I completely agree that in the final analysis, that final power of arbitration should rest with the GM.
But man oh man, a hard "No" should be used infinitely more judiciously than it usually is.
Think of it this way---what would do the hobby a greater service in promoting it as a viable, fun leisure activity? Creating the "perfect" marketing campaign to promote the "perfect" version of D&D? Or magically waving a wand and turning every jerk GM into a true ambassador for the hobby?
If I'm railing on GMs who insist on using the "Hard No" in their games, I'm really railing on those who insist that it's one of the fundamental tenets of play.
Because there's objectively better ways to have games that are more fun than falling back to "GM's way or the highway."