The complexity from generics isn't from the conceptual standpoint, it's from the resulting code standpoint... for the same reason that the ternary ?: operator is "too complex": it's really easy to say that `foo := cond ? 1 : 0` is better than the if/else alternative, but `foo := (a > (b.Active() ? Compare(b, a) : useDefault() ? DEFAULT : panic()) ? "worked" : "failed"` is a mess waiting to happen.
Same with generics. It's easy to point to simple examples. It hard to ensure that terrible metaprogramming monstrosities don't arise.
It's possible to write bad code with go as it is, but it's actually difficult to make such bad code inscrutable.
Maybe, but the solution to this is not to say: Only the compiler implementers are smart enough people to not create messy code with generics, only a few built-in data types are allowed to be generic and the rest will have to copy-paste implementations or use lose type information through `interface {}`
Not including feature X in programming language Y will also ensure that no-one who primarily uses Y will ever come to understand or appreciate X.
The blub paradox basically represents the opinion that it is always better for languages to include more powerful features.
I think that goes too far, working primarily in Scala I am seeing firsthand how much diminishing returns extra complexity in the language can have, but I'm certainly of the opinion that Go leans too heavily toward handicapping the language in pursuit of simplicity.