Rules Lawyering goes all the way back, sure, but it was making a case to the Judge (DM) and angling for a favorable ruling, not counting on there being a single nigh-universal agreed-upon reading of the rules. (And, "rules lawyer" tended to be sneering criticism, not praise.)
And I definitely don't feel there was even veiled contempt for "House Rules" (only ever saw that in Hoyle, prior to 3e) let alone Variants (the term I do recall hearing) back in the day, either.
Obsession with RaW became a big, community-wide thing only with 3.0
Going back and approaching old school D&D with that attitude isn't wrong, it's just a bit ironic.
Ultimately, when we analyze or judge a game, the text is the only objective representation and conclusions (like, well, AD&D rules were a conflicting mess) of that analysis are valid.
But we can miss the zeitgeist that surrounded the game, and thus the experience of playing it back in the day. (Nevermind the rose-coloured memories of that experience). And, by the same token, even veiled contempt for those experiences is unwarranted.