I just wonder if the word "bloat" has the specific meaning that those who propose we remove all bloat from our software seem to be insisting it does.
With so many distributions, a number of which claim to be aiming at the minimalist sector of the market, you can see that "no bloat" must mean different things to different people
1. There's Debian, since it's the base to so many distros, some might call debian console minimal.
2. There's distros that aim for "no bloat" in the built from source sense like Gentoo or GNU Mes.
3. There's AntiX, Puppy Linux, and the other minimal linux distros that still have guis but target older hardware.
4. There's ELKS and other Linux targeted at (even) older platforms.
And then there are other philosopers about bloat, like cat-v.org or suckless or bsd or 9front.
And of course it would seem really weird to talk about differing visions of bloat without pointing out both that every version of rnrs begins with "Programming languages should be designed not by piling feature on top of feature, but by removing the weaknesses and restrictions that make additional features appear necessary," and that each version of rnrs, and mit-scheme in particular, has grown by leaps and bounds over the years.