What's missing is the why. Just asserting that all JS-driven sites are broken and should use progressive enhancement doesn't really translate into real benefits

What's missing is the why. Just asserting that all JS-driven sites are broken and should use progressive enhancement doesn't really translate into real benefits. Using a system that spits out JS and saves me time and effort is a win. Why should I trade that out? I agree for some users, a properly gracefully degrading system is nice. I like when sites I use are properly URL-based, when I can share links and they just work. But that's rarely a reason I'll switch sites. So until there's some solid evidence that relying on JS translates into lost money or other serious damage, it's simply not worthwhile and declaring such things broken by fiat accomplishes nothing.