I'm starting to think the OSR for some has become a belief with its own dogma and orthodoxies and that's frequently why we run into friction here.
I read x blogs and digest and internalize their arguments and that becomes my world view on hex crawls and procedural mechanics and whether Gary was a rock god etc. and at a certain point I become saturated and am no longer open to ideas that stand in opposition to what I already believe.
It's one thing for us to discuss philosophies and another to attack my comfy, cozy beliefs.
Yeah the OSR has a shared revisionist myth about how D&D was universally played in the old days that has always chafed a bit (especially when its coming at me from people a decade or so younger than I am). I generally don't refer to myself as an OSR gamer, not because of the system I play, but because I don't buy into the myth, or the dogma (by which I mean pedantic adherence to certain game elements procedures even when they don't make sense in context).
I like a lot of blogs that are considered to be OSR because of the thought that has been given to procedures and mechanics from the old games, either to explain why they work (and therefore when they are necessary or unnecessary) or to improve upon them. However I have noticed that a lot of those blogs don't really refer to themselves as "OSR" anymore, and some might never have done so; in fact the ones I follow are all pretty inclusive. The only one that still uses the "OSR" logo is Grognardia (and man has he mellowed during his hiatus).
I guess I like blogs that are commonly considered to be OSR when they support homebrew, including homebrew rules. But a lot of the OSR sites I no longer follow seem to hate any kind of innovation or deviation from particular rules or playstyles, which is not the "old school" that I remember. I remember Dragon magazine exploding with new classes and alternate rules and fixes to things that were broken and fixes to things that worked just fine. I mean the whole thing was about creativity. This movement toward not changing anything is seriously at odds with my memories of how we approached the game "back in the day".
... OSR games are more rules light, but have a more pronounced ethos. The scope of what you are trying to achieve with your game and what is considered good play is more defined, so it is easier to form an opinion on practices.
I'll ask you to expand on this to make sure, but I think you have identified the source of my annoyance. I can't recognize a movement that defines itself by enforcing limitations as being "old school". To be fair, I actually don't know it this attitude is universal in the OSR; I don't detect a hint of any desire to impose limitations on play in Grognardia, for example, or in Bryce's reviews. But to the extent that this is a quality of the mainstream of the OSR, I don't think that it is old school at all.
Maybe they should call themselves "Old School Revisionists".
Edit: Actually I am quite fond of the AngryGM but he doesn't always do 5e so not sure if it counts.
Angry started with one of the versions of Basic where he got at least
some of his sensibilities; on the other hand I think his megadungeon project was 5e, and 5e was his primary system when I stopped reading him a couple of years ago.
Justin Alexander most definitely runs 5e, and a lot of other systems, and The Alexandrian has got to be one of the more commonly quoted sites in OSR circles.
Also, I only read the teaser for Maze of the Blue Medusa and I was seriously underwhelmed. I didn't think it was nearly as clever as it thought it was, and was thoroughly unusable.