I have a hypothesis about this: The lower your skill is at software development (or some subset of it), the more likely you are to be strongly opinionated about these kinds of arguments.

If you are highly skilled, you're far less likely to be married to any one bit of technology, even if you have prior preferences. You're also likely to have been through a few fad cycles before, so you probably learned to tune out the holy wars and focus on being productive. And if some stack X is really a giant turd, you should be able to figure that out quickly and avoid it, so you don't have a reason to write about how much it sucks.

On the other hand, if you know next to nothing, you're going to be more likely to read "Don't ever use X!" stories because you don't know what to use and are looking for advice. And you may be more dependent on whatever things you do use, because you don't yet know many other things, and you may be more likely to believe that it's better for your career to establish yourself as an expert in whatever you know.

I think the "front-end land" sees more of these now because front-end land is a new and bizzare place that only came into being a few years ago; people generally don't understand it as well as they do other things.

>A lot of these articles give me this vibe. So what if a competing technology is "bad". What does the author get out of saying "X technology is the best and Y is fail"? Are these guys now thought leaders?

I think it has something to do with signaling expertise, often for purposes of self-branding.