"The orc nonsense described earlier" was a common observation about D&D Orcs that I've heard in various gaming clubs for 20 years. These were hyper nerds who bragged about playing with Gygax and half the time didn't think that the "orc nonsense" was bad.
Just to clarify that we're on the same page, when I'm talking about the "orc nonsense," it's the idea that orcs in DnD, because they're more or less inherently evil, are therefore racist?
There's a bizarre insistence amongst a certain type of nerd that, if they disagree with a take, that must mean that the take is objectively wrong and must be a product of ignorance.
That you quoted one of my posts indicates that you think I'm that kind of nerd. I mean, okay, that's your prerogative, and the type of nerd you describe probably isn't going to see themselves as such (yes, we all have blind spots), but on the wider subject, I actually do agree, that there would be those kinds of nerds who act as you describe.
However, I'd counter with two points. One, not every defence of a media is blind fanboyism. There's good faith defence in contrast to bad faith criticism (or even good faith criticism). To name two examples from this very site, one was Movie Bob's criticism of Halo. He himself admitted that he hadn't played the games, then went on to launch a bizzare argument that the series was in favour of mono-culturalism or something because you have one species (humanity) fighting against a coalition of alien species (the Covenant). It was such a bizzare argument that I, and many other people saw (I didn't comment at the time) that he was either grossly ignorant of the series or was deliberately trolling, because there's no way anyone could play Halo, engage with the worldbuilding and te themes it actually raises (among which being the dangers of blind faith, which is why the Covenant follows Truth so easily), and conclude that its theme is "diversity is bad." And by his own admission, MB hadn't even played it.
(If you think criticizing a work without actually consuming it is a practice confined to games, then I can point you to the Blood Heir controversy for instance.)
The second critique, the one that actually got me to comment, was an article stating that "Gears 5 is a Celebration of Genocide." I actually commented then because I couldn't believe that anyone could play Gears 5 (or really any Gears game) and actually come to that conclusion. The analogy I used is that it was like reading Lord of the Flies and seeing it as a defence of fascism, because if Ralph had been a harsher, stronger leader, the island might not have devolved into chaos. Yes, there's some train of logic there, but you'd be hard pressed to make it. I assume that the writer was genuine, but there's some takes that are so outlandish that it's hard to tell. Maybe that makes me a Gears fanboy, but if the definition of fanboy is "someone who disagrees with a negative take on a piece of media," then that's not a useful definition. This coming from a person who'd criticized Traviss's Gears novels (really not fond of her politics) who was disagreed with then. Does that make the people who disagreed with me fanboys? Certainly I didn't think so.
Nearly done, but back to my second point. If I am that "certain type of nerd" (again, I don't think I am, but I could be wrong - the outside looking in and all that), I'd like to point out that there's a reason why I haven't said anything definitive on the creatures here because a) I haven't played the game, and b) when I looked stuff up, I saw competing claims as to what the creatures were actually based on. There's a reason why I'm comfortable discussing HP for instance, and not GI, the distinction being I'm familiar with the former, and not the latter. For instance, I can understand the "goblins are anti-semitic idea," I just sharply disagree with it, in part because of the reasons I described above (and various other reasons). I don't believe that makes me a fanboy, but hey, could be wrong.