clearstream
(He, Him)
Exactly! Although here we are discussing warlocks, and I don't really hold the view that "given X is egregious, it is okay for Y to be egregious".I think you may lack experience of how groups without warlocks are just as effective at completely neutralising some encounters.
I think each contributor to threads like this is usually speaking from what is, in truth, narrow experience relative to the combinations of characters, scenarios and ways to play that the rules support. In our campaign, features that stood out were kiting warlocks, polymorph-casters, spells like banishment where applicable, shield master (before the timing clarification/nerf), plane shift (for strategic circumvention), earth elemental burrow (for druids), guidance, healing spirit, and at times counterspell. No doubt other things I've forgotten right now. On one memorable occasion, eldritch spear was IMBA... which could be worth considering if a group have predominately outdoor encounters.
As a contributor to threads, over time I have become more and more aware how different views are motivated by what turns out to be very diverse experience. One set are - "What, how can you possibly have a problem with that?" - and another set are - "How can you not?!" Still, there are themes, and I believe that when one looks at later design choices (e.g. Xanathar's) versus earlier, one is seeing where the designers themselves land; from their much, much wider view of play. I've also come to feel less convinced by white-room examples. White-rooms omit much that really matters at the table.
The above then is what motivates me toward guidelines that can apply broadly mutatis mutandis. And thinking in terms of priority: how important is Y at your table? Maybe that differs from my table. Probably we should do more polling and give more thought to other evidence of wider concern, in terms of evaluating the worth of a proposed change.