It is generally poor form to start off a conversation leveling insults with poor justification and logical rigor, and then harp on someone else about bringing evidence while holding original burden of proof (in itself a fallacy).
If you really want to get technical;
By making the assumption about "weak minds" that are "on the bandwagon so they wouldn't feel left out," the burden of proof rests on your shoulders.
Anecdotally referencing "facts clearly visible" is not sufficient evidence to any degree. "New posts today" is a large set and non-static set due to said posts and up/down votes obviously changing by the very nature of this site and what users are able to do on it, nor is it obvious which facts or sentiments you are deriving from reading which posts, and whether you have accounted for selection or confirmation bias, etc. "The facts" seems a vague and premature description at best.
Claiming that generally, universally, or even "a ton" of people are "not being able to reasonably represent why they're unsatisfied" is not sufficient evidence to any degree, since you have failed to provide any justification for what proportion these users account for the whole of complaints, or actual evidence of their failed posts and by which criteria they were invalidated.
The list goes on.
I don't personally have a stake in the Razor debate either way, it just bugged me to see anyone casually throw about "evidence," "validity," etc with so very little adherence to rigor on their own part.
As for my personal observations made during the livestream and a short while after, the top three complaints against the Razor were:
This is automatically valid as it is a personal preference devoid of any need for objectivity. Saying it's not valid is like asking someone what their favorite color is and, upon receiving the reply "blue," shouting "NO YOU'RE WRONG." Paraphrasing our linguistic forefathers, "in matters of taste there shall be no disputes."
This is valid. Claims that it can't be part of the MISC design space are obviously wrong, since CIG owns said design space and gets to decide (and obviously trivial lore justifications can be easily found). That it does not currently fit the design space, as well as further eroding the sense that each manufacturer encompasses a distinct visual style, is valid, because by looking different it obviously does.
Validity varies. The actual arguments around this whole idea is an entire discussion on its own. Suffice to say most points have been rehashed ad nauseam in our sub; CIG needs more funding, CIG needs shiny shit to attract attention, concept ships may not upset other ships in the pipeline, concept ships may not interfere with SQ42, et cetera.