I'll admit I didn't have all the facts straight about Greenlight. That said, I agree with the people that made it, that it's not a success in its current incarnation. Nor, again, do I like that projects no where near completion get put up on Greenlight and people go "we got Greenlit!" as if that means something other than there's a community hub hosted by Steam. When Greenlight was about helping tiny games trying to get their foot in the door, I was all about it. It seems less like that now, especially when people desperate for exposure go there so they get more crowd sourcing.
Its obviously completely fine to dislike a game or even Greenlight as a whole. It's just that alot of critisizm by people has not been leveraged against Greenlight, but a strawman instead.
It is still about (or at least involves) helping tiny games get their foot in the door. However most tiny games suck due to Sturgeons Law (hence the reason I have not expessed any suprise in the content of Greenlight) which may come to a bit of suprise to people who have good, warm, positive emotions about "tiny" games (which is not supported by cold, harsh statistics) due to the handfull of genuinely good ones that have come out (and filtered out of the crap by review websites, this forum etc for you).
I would also consider the "we got Greenlit!" thing to be a complete non-issue (they are just informing you they are on Greenlight) along with people are going to use it for exposure (which I also do not understand the issue with given that is one of the purposes of Greenlight - to expose games to the community to vote on).
In other words: tiny games need exposure, its a good thing, and disliking games/Greenlight is totally fine but strawmen are bad.