The disclaimer here is that I'm not particularly fond of Helvetica, nor do I actively hate on it. You could even say I'm neutral on its usage.

Helvetica's ubiquity is part of its neutrality. Perhaps that's something unique to Helvetica (and maybe Garamond or Caslon), but it's true. People are used to seeing that letterform, and as a "default," it has become neutral. Now as for the letterforms themselves, I would argue that Avenir is even more "neutral" if what we're trying to say is that a simplified typeface is without voice. Outside of being a graphic designer/typographer/whathaveyou, Helvetica does, in fact have no voice. To a designer, choosing the correct time to use Helvetica is a big deal, and Helvetica is not always appropriate. The end result though, is to convey to the consumer/user/whoever than the identity is neutral and stripped down. We can circle jerk with eachother all we want, but the designer is a minuscule fraction of the end-user.

Most Arial haters (and they outnumber Helvetica haters 100:1) would, especially once the most differentiated glyphs are removed, be hard-pressed to tell it apart from Helvetica. At least if you are going to hate, then do so consistently. In my opinion, if you hate Arial (and hate really is too strong a verb/noun for discussions about digital typefaces), then you are vicariously hating on Helvetica, whether you like it or not.

This block of text is riddled with flaws. Removing the differentiating glyphs is like saying "Once you take all the good players out of the Chicago Blackhawks, they're no better than the Buffalo Sabers." The only reason Arial exists is because Microsoft didn't want to pay to license it on Windows machines, and they tweaked it for better on-screen legibility. When it's used in print, it's a bit more obvious, even to the layman. Although I will concede, not always.

I promised myself I'd stop ranting on type stuff. Sorry everyone, I couldn't help it.