Now that writers have a number of options in ways to publish, some of them espouse one particular way above all others. They're adamant that their way is the best. If pressed, they'll provide ancedotes about why their method is superior. Some wag called this "Anecdata," a term I like.
If someone points to successful people who triumphed using a particular method, they may be using "survivor bias," which is when you pick only the successful examples to show how succesful something is. Here's a great article on it, also called "Why 90% of the advice about writing is bullshit."
There is no one way, but some people treat the differences like a holy war. Some traditionally published people won't even talk to people who didn't travel the same path to publication, no matter the reason. They see all self-published works as worthless. And a lot of selfers rant about the evils of big publishing, as if it was signing a deal with the devil. Hey, I've done a fair share of Big Pub bashing here on this blog, calling out the wrongs when I see them. Doesn't mean I'm totally against it-- it's right for some people-- I'm even counseling a writer I know to go that path with her manuscript.
This post has a great chart to understand the differences in publishing.
So let's all agree that choice is good, and everyone gets to pick their own path.
To lighten the mood, here's a funny piece: 10 Reason Not to be a Writer.
And I love this short piece by Walter Mosely on The Magic Of Pulp Fiction.