A reddit user
sums up the perspectives very neutrally:
Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized. Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better.
Big blocker: Bitcoin will probably need more technology to help scaling, but that tech isn't ready yet and won't be for months. For now, the more important priority is to drive growth, and that means expanding capacity. The block size will have to grow eventually, so let's do it now and not start dropping transactions. We should ensure 0-conf continues to work reliably for purchases. New technologies will help make Bitcoin faster and more scalable, but people should use them or not based on their own merits; we shouldn't force people to change the way they transact by letting Bitcoin itself get clogged and expensive to use.
Put differently, one view focuses more on the system, the other focuses more on the users.
So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.
But it's not even that for most big blockists, as Greg Maxwell
observes:
A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes. Subsequently, we figured out how to make a similar increase in direct capacity with segwit while also improving scaling, without the hard fork.
So on this account, I think your binary classification is a bit off. I think a significant portion of people advocating larger blocks don't care about user experience at all (after all, much larger blocks will be devastating to the user experience of running a node) but about being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth with the most minimal effort possible. A purpose I don't necessarily oppose, but not one we can sell bitcoin's medium to long term future to achieve: this isn't a ponzi scheme.
We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)