> It has nothing to do with prettiness. For better or for worse, if it's not a part of the default desktop, then most people won't see it.
It's still configurable. If you want to change it you can change it. And I _do_ change my fonts actually.
The way I figure it is that if people are going to complain they might as well do it in a constructive, thoughtful, and accurate manner. If you want to complain that there is no easy way to change the fonts by default, then complain about that. (As mentioned by the other user Linux is the only OS that seems to have issues with this. Neither Windows or OS X provides any sane way to configure fonts desktop-wide. Usually all font configuration is done on a per-application basis.)
If you want to have a nice dialog with all sorts of buttons, drop down dialogs, sliders, and all sorts of fancy wiz-bang drag and drop configuration options... then say you want that. People need to admit that they want a GUI configuration tool that is pretty and easily accessible; and that being made to install any software to tweak your system is unacceptable.
However saying that the system is unconfigurable is really missing what people are actually irritated about. It's very configurable. It's just that they don't like the manner at which it's configured.
Fundamentally it really boils down to a sense of empowerment. Nobody wants to mention it because 'feeling empowered' is a bit of a taboo subject among technical computer type people. They want to have the feeling that they are in control and a few whiz-bang sliders can provide that.
This is what needs to be talked about to improve Gnome. Admitting what is really going on and what people are really concerned about is what is going to solve problems and avoid endless trolling and trotting out useless tropes every time Gnome is mentioned in passing in any article anywhere.