>>if your appreciation of something is founded in a nostalgic obsession with only part of that thing, then, no, I don't think it's unfair to say that appreciation is "not real".
Then anyone who liked something that came to exist in the past and wasn't 100% on board with the direction it took has fake appreciation then?
That just sounds like gatekeeping.

Re: Why follow a work that you don't like.

I wouldn't know, I don't do that. I also don't try to downplay the flaws or the shitty fandom history. It's there, it will be discussed, and trying to stop it just extends the life of the discourse.

But, you know how ragebait works, right? Same essential principle. Not saying all detraction falls in this camp, but it's definitely part of the relationship some have with the work. People by nature zero in on the negatives of anything far more readily than the positives, unless they train themselves out of it.
Have you ever watched terrible movies just to mock them with friends? or even done drinking games tied to the writing? That's another way to enjoy a creative work, even if it's not the healthiest.

>>how is it a retcon? there's no evidence as to non animal genitalia existing beforehand. there's no textual proof that anyone in homestuck actually has genitalia at all. you can hate the dog penis without making up reasons why it sucks
Regardless of how you feel about it, it makes the work significantly harder to discuss and even recommend in casual conversation or to new people, and doing so risks "validating" stereotypes of the fandom in people's minds. And IMO it was a deliberate test of how much the fandom would endure re:writing while still being willing to openly admit they like the work. Not unlike a hazing.

I can't blame people who have issues with it or paint them as "negative" for pointing out something fucked up is fucked up. I didn't choose the direction it took so why do I need to defend it? You're also not obligated to dislike something because a loud cluster of people online do so. It works both ways.