Well, I'll lay out how I read your post, and you can tell me what I'm misinterpreting.
If that's what the competitive community is really like, they need to grow a f*cking backbone and stop rattataing about everything. Personally, I've always looked down on people who take the game too seriously, mainly because they complain about the things they can't change, so it's pointless.
The language you use is loaded with value judgments.
Grow a backbone. (You are communicating that tiering and other rulesets are a wimpy cop-out.)
Complain. (You are communicating that tiering and other rulesets are the result of unsubstantiated self-indulgence and entitlement.) If you want your argument to come off as more respectful, then you should avoid words with such loaded negative connotations.
Anyway, people are allowed to enjoy the game as they wish. There an inherent silliness to Pokemon, but there is nothing wrong with enjoying a game competitively or "taking it seriously." I see no justification for looking down on someone for this, as people tend to take their hobbies seriously, however trivial they seem to outsiders. (I hear this often from my mother, who wonders how I can get emotionally attached to the NBA Finals.)
What are you gonna do about it if someone uses Sheer Cold? Exactly. You can't do anything.
Well, sure we can. Imagine if I said this about basketball: "What are you gonna do about it if someone tackles your point guard? Exactly, you can't do anything." You might find hard fouling in basketball to be more disagreeable than OHKO moves, and you might very well be right, but rulesets are created to govern a game and make it better. You can disagree with how well they actually do that, but your post appears to be attacking the legitimacy of
any ruleset with the assumption that we should be favoring the game as it is given to us. Perhaps this is the source of my misinterpretation, but this assumption is heavily implied when you say things like:
If there's something you don't like about the game, you don't play it. It's that simple.
Why is this the case? Why should it be the case? You state this as if it is a fact, but this is actually a very conservative argument masquerading as common sense; you are assigning greater value to a "pure" state of the game, which is assumed to be superior to one that is altered by humans, yet this is circularly justified. What is wrong with changing a game?
The NBA introduced the three-point line in 1979. If I went back and time and said "don't add the three-point line: if there's something you don't like about the game, you don't play it. It's that simple," I would sound ridiculous.
This is why I interpret your post as communicating that there is something
wrong with us changing the game, or something
right about it in its purest state. Yet as a competitive game, Pokemon is very flawed. Even with the tiering system Smogon has adopted, it remains very flawed. The subject matter of this thread, the Uber tier, is a pretty good example of that. All these rulesets try to do is make it better, just like three-pointers have made basketball more exciting.
You also explicitly express a favoring for the "pure" state of the game here:
I play games the way they were meant to be played - for fun, not as an excuse to complain about every conceivable in-game topic.
...But "the way they were meant to be played" is entirely how
you assume it is intended, when in reality, "how it is meant to be played" means something different to everyone. You are passing it off as objective when it is entirely subjective. In effect, you are implicitly claiming a universality to your value system for online Pokemon. You are clinging to moralistic ideals of what the game should be, only the value of these ideals is never substantiated (hence my earlier claim that your argument is circular). Why is a game, given to us on the cartridge with no ruleset, "how the game is meant to be played"? Because it is the purest form? But that too is circular. I am legitimately puzzled by this assertion.
If that is a misinterpretation, then you really need to dial back your rhetoric, because I don't know how else I could possibly interpret it.