I think it's the balance between new and old. You know, if your TV is either too old or too new it looks like you're trying too hard.

I have a Mac 128k in my basement, does that count?

Hahaha! My thoughts exactly. There's a fine line between a compliment, a jibe and an insult. All subjective, of course.

It will take more than that to get me down!

Otherwise-equivalent Smart TVs are usually less expensive than displays (whether TVs or monitors) without the "Smart" features. This is a matter probably largely of economies of scale -- because that's what manufacturers think the consumer market wants, that's what they make most of and flood consumer channels with, and dumb alternatives are a specialty product.

All else being equal, would I skip the smart features? Sure. You don't get that choice though. At least, I never have. Aspects like display technology, color reproduction, contrast, latency, etc are much more important to me than smart vs. dumb, and those things are how I make my decision.

That assumption is not reasonable at all. Not only are "dumb" TVs no cheaper, hardly anyone even sells them anymore.

And also designed by people who have no business doing UIs in the first place, which makes them crappy. It's a similar situation as with printer "value-added" software from printer vendors.

If you don't trust the TV manufacturer to include spying devices in their product, there is no reason to believe the "dumb" TV you brought from them is any less capable.

Not if it isn't connected to your network.