2 first.
Premise:
"I think there exists a deep similarity between 4E and PF2 as regards design philosophy"
If the above premise doesn't bear out a resemblance to "the actual play experience of 4e at the table..."
I mean, if these two things aren't roughly equal, then (a) what low bar statement are we trying to tease out of the premise and, more importantly,
You seem to be taking at face value that design philosophy direct correlates to play experience at the table. I'm not sure that's a true statement.
It also strikes me that no one has said PF2 plays like 4e. Not even the PF2 detractors. So I'm thinking your premise here is a bit misguided.
(b) why is this low bar statement that we're teasing out of the premise even worthy of a post and then apparently controversial enough to stimulate 30 pages of subsequent conversation?
Just a general discussion about 4e and PF2 seems to draw out long conversations. That this one has managed to go on so long without being shutdown is the amazing part.
Now 1:
The burden of proof is on someone making a claim.
So it's said. I actually disagree with this. (So since it's you making this claim then do you care to provide evidence for it - I jest)
You see I believe both sides make claims in any discussion and both sides have a burden to provide evidence of their claims. In fact I'd call it an inquisition when only one side must provide evidence of their claims - which ironically is usually how that quote get's used.
So, until the proof shows up that there was intentiful design philosophy which endowed a "deep similarity between 4e and PF2", the evidence that 4e advocates who weren't simultaneously PF2 advocates (along with the other aspects of extreme difference that I and others have mentioned) are not playing PF2 is pretty robust.
We have both offered evidence of our positions. Neither side has fullproof evidence. I find your position doesn't really provide a justification for PF2's seemingly complete ignoring of 5e.
Yes, there are some siloed kindred aspects of the two games. But that is a far cry from the lead post premise.
We are 560+ posts in. I don't think anyone is still talking solely about the lead post premise.
And honestly, I always have to wonder about how this outrage comes to be, in the same way that I wondered how the (truly staggering and embarrassing) scorched earth campaign against 4e came to be (that literally made the hobby uninhabitable...I still contest that the behavior of people during that era drove SIGNIFICANTLY more people away from the hobby than the actual game itself did).
That's something we agree on
It makes no sense. The status quo is never going anywhere. Just because a new game is out doesn't mean that your prior game is gone and iteration is, at its most fundamental level, changing the status quo. If you don't like the changes, you don't have to stage a relentless peasants with torches and pitchforks revolt. Just keep playing what you're playing or play something else (which is what I've always done)!
When a game you love turns it's back on you it's difficult. Especially one you've invested a lot of time and many and emotions into supporting and defending and making successful. I understand the sentiment. It's not a rational response - it's an emotional one.
The gatekeeping of TTRPGing (D&D in particular) is easily the worst aspect of our hobby.
I wouldn't equate the outrage over 4e to gatekeeping.
