I am familiar with DCC and its funnel in the broad strokes.
<snop>
Good then you should be able to point t things more objectively defined in ways everyone can look to than reinterpreting the types of games you think specific people or vague groups of nonspecific individuals run using nearly characterized descriptions.
I am arguing, more or less, that there is a pervasive attitude in D&D that the game should be played in a nearly-funnel-like way....except that you only ever get one character at a time. Again, more power to people who enjoy that. But, as we've seen, questioning the hegemony of that kind of thing often gets people thinking you mean to remove any and all challenge, loss, hardship, or uncertainty from the game.
Again, it seems like you're saying the only options are "success" or "success, but a little sucky." If so, that implies, again, that the players are guaranteed success, simply because random, purposeless,
you kinda took what I wrote, dialed it to 11 & then responded to the new version dialed to 11 there too. When I explain that there is enjoyment in
"working together as a group to coordinate so as to minimize risks & maximize everyone's capabilities in combat as well as doing the same for the world & environment both as a player as well as a gm when my players do it. " & pointed out how that is harmed as an element of gameplay by removing too many elements linked to fear of death & attrition
I did not in any way take the potential for failure off the table just because it goes on to talk about the importance of having consequences to accompany "succeeding
poorly" as an undesirable state to fear that is a whole wide range between success & failure. I'm completely baffled how you could leap to that conclusion from my words as that's a rather strange leap of assumption.
It's worth noting that what you call a "pervasive attitude" seems to rely on including almost anything less than a position close to calling 5e's near total lack of consequences as the pinnacle of perfection as some kind of rallying cry for a flavor of hardcore meatgrinder dcc style funnel tomb of horrors campaigning. I honestly think those types of mischaracterizations are the root of the disconnect & why so many are strongly calling you out. You can dismiss the reasons people give in support of that stretch of middle ground & suggest gm's bone up on skills by finding other motivations like revenge affection or even "something" as we've seen people suggest a few times in this thread but that doesn't solve the problems they are pointing at accompanying going too far with dialing back how fear of something in the system.
My problem is that I (and my players, based on their behavior) find it extremely difficult to ever ignore such feelings and "throw caution to the wind" when anxiety over losing their characters is so front-and-center. Instead of doing something exciting and risky, they consistently avoid every possible risk as they go wherever they're going, sometimes in ways that are seriously detrimental to their own goals. They're still very skittish even WITH the measures I already take, AND counting the fact that they trust me as a good friend. For a group like this, if they're "certainly...feeling such things every time they go adventuring," it's going to mean that they stop adventuring. I doubt I need say, that would be a bad result for everyone involved.
Hence, my challenge to the notion that such feelings are necessary for all tables always.
This opens a new question: What happens if the characters take excessive precautions, then? Because that's the issue I face with my group. They aren't these crazy risk-takers for whom the everpresent fear of death is the only limit on their behavior. Instead, the everpresent fear of death causes them to shut down, paralyzed with dread, so that instead of them dying, the adventure dies.
This bit is largely the same topic just responding to different points people were making & it's a multipart problem in 5e. Past editions had significant amounts of pagespace devoted to explaining things like intent behind things & ways of leveraging both the rules as well as the system as flexible tools you should feel empowered to modify. They also included a variety of subsystems & guidelines that would assist with the problem you are seeing.
Second characters had areas where they could confidentially avoid certain types of risks with most attacks not actually beating ACs unless you were a squishy & the mods would often add up to a significant percentage of the d20 or oercentile dice making it more reliable than everyone just saying "well guess I'll try" & seeing who rolls high enough to dramatically outdo the player with a poor roll & mere specialization. In some cases the specialist was literally the only one capable of even attempting something. All of that combined gave players a feeling that they had more of a buffer than the raw numbers of their hp & that their skill specializations were significant. While system differences make most of the 2e advice on intent & leveraging the rules difficult to carry over or really even discuss too much there were some timeless ones like
this pg115 of the 2e dmg about awarding treasure. 3.x took that a step further by including a pair of linked rules called going beyond the rule & the dm's best friend(
here) that provided both the insight & advice to leverage it as well as a simple flexible framework both sides of the gm screen could use to interact with the world in ways far too deep into situational edge cases to have specific rules on in a way they could feel comfortable inferring cause & effect of reasonable measures.
Finally players who felt they needed to display serious caution had powerful limited use tools to manipulate things in their favor given proper planning & strategy, casters especially. 5e weakened many of those tools to no longer be all that solid or reliable at doing their thing then gated fr far too many of them behind concentration so players were left feeling like the party lacked a solid safety net from the
often little more than dead weight caster. Coupled with bob the fighter/pally no longer being able to confidentially avoid most attacks reliably to make healing spells have a bigger bang for the buck. Those areas all overlapped with the tactical rules so casters could control the situation & keep an emergency ace or two to dump everything ending it if things suddenly went south while the martials could use their crunchyness & the robust tactical combat rules to feel confident keeping
their squishies safe & managing the semicontrolled but safe enough situation
Honest question to you all: Do you really see all other in-world consequences as merely transitory faults? Do you really play games where "a druid-cult transformed the whole friggin' desert into a swamp" is as airily non-consequential as "I'm down 5 HP"? Do you really play characters with the power to un-break the world and resurrect all those who die of a plague and restore every bombed-out city to its pristine glory? I just...can't fathom that so many people play in games where LITERALLY the only meaningful consequence, the only consequence that could ever linger and continue to be a problem long after it happened, is character death.
If you are at 5hp in most older editions you were probably t
errified because it didn't even take a crit to flat out kill you. If you are at 5hp in 5e you can take 5 points of damage plus up to your max hp(instant death phb197) then
two more attacks before anyone in the group can heal you for even a single point to reset you back to virtually the same state you were in with the 5hp. Despite how terrifying it was to be at 5hp in the past players had a lot more tools to slow the descent to 5hp & the system was setup in ways that made your armor further slow the slide even when those tools aren't justified or things somehow go sideways.
There is no escaping consequences, and there's certainly been failures which have resulted in all kinds of nastiness for the player characters. 
