As I mentioned in the thread on "Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?", the OSR is an RPG cult obsessed with OD&D. It isn't about rational reasons why OD&D's ruleset is better, it's about working backwards from the supposition that it is, then seeing what they want to see in it. Like finding figures in a cloud. Even the absence of rules is seen as a feature that encourages creative problem solving, as opposed to the rule simply not existing because the designers didn't have time to write it (Dave Arneson originally wanted D&D to have skills, for example,
according to Griffith Morgan [don't remember the exact timestamp; might be near the end, though]), didn't consider it important to cover in the core rules at the time or only had so much page space available. And anyone that wants rules for certain things is derided as needing the rules to tell them what to do, lacking creativity (cuz apparently I'm not making up new rules or trying out different system mechanics all the time) or ruining the hobby.
There seems to be a disconnect between playstyle preferences, as well as anecdotal experience, and objective reality. And certain experiences or playstyle methods are seen as a product of the ruleset, as opposed to certain people playing that way for practical reasons or common player paranoia. I've seen people check every nook and cranny for traps in almost every game I've played--it isn't a BX exclusive thing! The existence of skills doesn't necessarily remove paranoid players. A lot of this is more a matter of culture than the system itself.
And this isn't even a new thing, I used to encounter people who gave similar defenses of BX back in the 90s, and they always had similar criticisms about 2e as many have today about 3e. They constantly complained about how AD&D was unbalanced, because you could have a character that was both a fighter AND an elf, and every time I brought up skills or non-weapon proficiencies they told me I didn't need them and that they could make anything up as DM.
Some people also seem to ignore that other people are willing to accept certain tradeoffs (such as added complexity or extended character creation) in exchange for having certain things in the game (like more character options), and understand that somethings always involve a give and take. So pointing out that tradeoffs exist doesn't make a ruleset that doesn't have them inherently superior, it just means that one ruleset incorporates certain components and the other doesn't. We know that a class-based system that also has skills and special abilities (feats, traits, whatever) is more complex and has longer character creation than one that doesn't. It's not a matter of "this game doesn't has all this extra crap that extends character creation, therefore it's better", it's a matter of what is it specifically that you want out of the game. If what you want is character details, then a simplified game system simply isn't gonna cut it, and no amount of touting the faster character creation speed of "roll 3d6 in order, pick the class you qualify for, you're set" is going to change that.