Ironically, I think your comment falls into the same cognitive trap as the const vs let thing: the always-use-let argument is usually that const does not mean immutable data structure and that fact is confusing, so you should let to signal that the data structure is mutable, even though what let really means is to make the binding mutable, not to indicate anything about the data structure it points to. The counter-argument - despite what it may seem - is not the opposite stance, but rather that because bindings and data structures are two different things, conflating the two is confusing.

Likewise, I'm saying that a minority is vocal because reading a rant from a OSS celebrity either reaffirms their preconceptions or sways them through aggressiveness (both of which are objectively true, as I have witnessed cases of both), but you're accusing me of projecting (presumably because you think that I'm making a claim about you personally - which is not true).

Consider that some of the words you use are weasel words ("overusing", "fad"), which, IMHO imply a tautology (i.e. "I think X, therefore X", as opposed to "The facts are X, therefore Y"). I originally said that the spec is clear about what const and let are. Implying that following the spec is a fad is needlessly derogatory and doesn't address the double standard with regards to the confusing-ness of const vs let.