I think there's an argument that pixel art was designed for CRT displays and thus optimized for it. I think of it like Pointillism: the work is made of little dots, but the point is for you to see the entire work blend together. And for low resolution works like retro games, they often hold up well on CRT (especially real ones). However, I think modern games with the pixel art aesthetic look best crisp.
To each their own tastes, though.
In many cases there is no argument to be had.
https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/167807/6463
These sprites are terrible without CRT-ness (skeleton has pixels unbalanced, clearly placed for an antialiasing effect; beast is unshaded). Also, look at that waterfall, for which filters have a hard time, either inefficient or making the rest of the scene excessively blurry.
Tina, Final Fantasy 6: https://twitter.com/CRTpixels/status/1461386650039164932
(Amano concept art of her: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/b/b7/T...)
The "retro pixel art look" is misplaced nostalgia by people who were too young for the original releases of these games and may have played them on early emulators. Developers knew what they were doing and worked hard on making it look good on the actual hardware; we're just recovering that in software.
This is an example of what I mean by Stockholm Syndrome. This person when they were young got used to the poor quality of the displays and now thinks it looks better. This person excuses the blur by just calling it "soft brush strokes."