No, the idea that if someone disagrees with you about the thematic core of DL it means that they haven't read enough DL is gatekeeping. It's ironically the sort of "just because they disagree" approach that you're decrying here. Just because someone disagrees with you about DL doesn't mean they haven't read enough DL to discuss it.
How much any subject do you feel someone need to read to be “well informed”? 1 book? 3 books? Took a class? Worked in that position for 5 years? What’s the minimum to be “Knowledgable” in a subject?
Is it, I read some posts on a forum and made up an opinion? I read 3 out of 200 books? I skimmed the official campaign setting from 30 years ago? I watched the direct to video movie once?
I’ve read the LotRs and The Hobbit twice and watched all the films several times. I wouldn’t say I’m knowledgable on the intricacies of Middle Earth.
I am ignorant in a lot of subjects just as a lot of people here are ignorant of DL. Ignorant isn’t a bad word. Just means a lack of knowledge in something.
What a lot of people here have is an opinion. Which is fine. Everyone had one. You read a book or read some forum posts and came to an opinion. Perfectly valid. I’ve watched and read a ton of stuff I only watched/read a minimum of and didn’t like it went on my way. Classic DL isnt for you. That’s fine. Well until WotC changes it for you,
I guess.
Just seems really weird to me people fighting over a property they don’t care for or never touched or barely touched the fiction. Do you just need a win? Told your opinion based on minimal lore is just as weighted as those who know more about it?
Sorry I’ve read so many DL novels and campaign guides?
Take your win. WotC is changing something you dislike after 4 novels into something more generic and palpable for those who only want to read 10 pages of lore before getting to the new subclasses and feats and 50 pages of adventure before moving on to the new adventure book 3 months later.