A common argument I see against the attitude of "Let people enjoy things" is that it will discourage people from thinking critically about media. And this is my response to that:

Perhaps because the word "critical" has an inherently negative connotation, the phrase "thinking critically" has become known in fandom vocabulary as "finding and exposing everything problematic about a given work".

While this is certainly a part of literary analysis (which is the natural byproduct of "thinking critically" about a work), I would argue that it is definitely not all-encompassing of the full meaning of the phrase.

"Thinking critically" can also refer to readers finding and praising aspects of the work that the author did WELL or the creation and articulation of interpretations of a work's meaning that is not spelled out explicitly in the text.

Metas have always been a good place to find both of these (but especially the latter) in fandom spaces. And writers who are just starting out often try to emulate techniques that have worked well in their favourite author's stories into their own original pieces.

Both of these creative outlets that spring directly from the reader/audience side of media consumption require deep analysis and time sifting through and refining ideas. While they may not be a biting critique, I WOULD classify them as ways to "think critically" about literature.

And I think they also deserve respect. Thus, I cannot understand the argument that believes without fandom policing, readers will lose their ability to think critically about the media they consume. Because we've been doing it all along whether you acknowledge it as such or not.