I wouldn't mind, but what's most frustrating is that one side is grounded in reasoning and evidence, and the other side is grounded in putting fingers in ears and shouting that everything is better than it ever was.
That's how it looks from one side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle sees it differently, and it might go something like this:
"What's most frustrating is that one side is actually concerned with properly developing players and establishing a culture of winning which is ultimately what puts butts in seats, and the other side simply wants to keep chasing after a pie-in-the-sky player that may end up being a bust anyway particularly if thrust into a locker room with a culture of losing."
I don't imagine you would much agree with that statement - no more than they would agree with your characterization, particularly your description of the other side as shouting that everything is better than ever, which seems to me a strange characterization of a side which is at least trying to be optimistic.
And for balance, let me give you
my view from somewhere in the middle:
"What's most frustrating is that both sides have good arguments, but the side that most likely has the better argument all things considered has fallen into relentless, often toxic negativity rather than agreeing to disagree and somehow not realizing that this insistence on negativity causes the other side to stick their fingers in their ears and has actually forced them to carve out spaces on the board where they can do strange things like enjoy the team winning without being told that their enjoyment is wrong."
The ability of these two sides to live together seems to be very close to nil right now, but I really don't think it has to be that way. And while the pro-tank crowd might not like to hear it, it seems to me that the onus is on them to tone down the rhetoric if they want reconciliation. It's possible to be friends with someone who shares the same goals as you (the Kings becoming a winning franchise) but disagrees with you on the best way to do it without persistently turning it into an argument, and an unfriendly one at that. My take, for what it is worth, is that it is the pro-tank side that is most responsible for persistently turning it into an argument.
And the bottom line is that from here on out, for a full eighteen months we need to play the draft hand we've been dealt. Maybe we did a bad job at shuffling and cutting, maybe it's partially our own fault what draft hand we have, but the bottom line is that we are not going to play a single game for the next eighteen months where losing the game could possibly mean anything good for the franchise. For eighteen months, there is literally NO TANKING. TANKING IS OVER. And what this means, if anybody has read this far, is that there is really no good reason to turn anything into an argument about tanking for eighteen months. What's done is done, and for the next eighteen months what's to be done is drafting, signing free agents, making trades, developing players, and hoping that the Kings win every game possible. There is no tanking. We don't need to argue about tanking. And we've got eighteen months to try to get along. Let's make the best of it.