I have been using Linux since 1993 (as well as IRIX and HP/UX). Never really used Windows aside from gaming and 2 years (2010-2012) when I was in senior management.
There was always some undercurrent of what you could call "toxic elitism" in the Linux crowd, but that was mostly to distinguish from Windows users. Linux was far from being a real alternative for non-Nerds and Windows users didn't really come to our Usenet channels anyhow.
Now we have distributions that do offer easy access to the world of Linux (I had my in-laws on a Linux system and my mom uses one as well) and what happens? The Linux community here on Reddit does their best to destroy the appeal that Linux may have to people who want to try it out:
why all the infighting between distributions? Whether that's r/fedora, r/ubuntu, r/pop-os, r/arch, …. whenever somebody mentions problems with the distribution or suggests that some other flavour of GNU/Linux may be better suited for a particular usecase, they get downvoted, attacked …
why the elitism with Arch et al? Why recommend distributions like that to beginners? I understand the motives, but not everybody needs to understand the system to the same level as the uber-nerds. And being an Arch-user doesn't make anybody a better person, or a 7337 HaX0r. It just confirms the prejudice that Linux is an OS for people who don't have a live away from the computer.
Or is this another symptom of the gate-keeping? Are we, as a community afraid that Linux may become more popular, and that we loose some mythical wizard status?
Which distribution can I still use without feeling like I'm contributing to some fanboy cult or circlejerk?