To put the reddit post in perspective, we are talking about the views of <0.0005 of the ( assumed ) current player base.
I think a game that caters for all tastes would be better, not just one minority viewpoint or another. Promoting features that appeal to one's own preferences is normal human behaviour. Simultaneously attempting to demote features that others prefer is a less appealing trait, wherever it arises.
I know you have already received a few replies, but the way I see it, even if we are talking about a small percentage of people, as you pointed out, there are still very interesting and constructive points raised there.
Also, what is it about changes to the current system that would make it less likely to "cater for all tastes"? After all, no matter what is done or isn't, the game will inevitable HAVE systems in the end. The regular players / wide masses will learn whatever system there is without prior knowledge of DND or not. What matters in the end is whether or not the system is good, and DND 5th edition is designed to be a very simple system, which is why many believe that a truer adherence to that system would benefit the game. In many ways, the Larian homebrew has made some things far more complicated than the original ruleset.
In the end, what matters is if the systems work, seems balanced, gives good options and is fun. Obviously not everyone can be pleased, but there does seem to be a large consensus among people regarding a few key points about the system, and I am sure that changing those things wouldn't have a negative impact on the "catering to the masses", so to speak.
