Advocating? Do natural phenomena require advocates? Or do they just happen?
Do you advocate for seasons, or for sunspots?
I think this is the inevitable consequence of insisting that the laws of the universe must make intuitive sense, not just to someone, but to you personally.
Once you've decided that, you're kind of forced into the position of picking something you feel makes intuitive sense and 'advocating' that it must be the way the universe works. From there it is but a short step to deciding that anyone who doesn't agree is a moron, or that there is some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth.
I enjoy trying to understand the universe, and I enjoy the debates between different views. But I don't see why there must be an underlying truth that we can fully comprehend, let alone agree on.
Maybe a bit of clarification on Bell, who was definitely at the forefront of this kind of thing, but whose views are often misrepresented and taken out of context. My views:
On this subject, Bell was very much an outlier from the physics community, which I do not mean as a criticism. He was definitely with Einstein et al in not liking the implied 'action at a distance' in QM, which he seemed to feel was 'unphysical'. When he developed his theorem/inequalties, he seems to have hoped that experiment would not show the Bell Inequalities were violated, supporting the idea of local hidden variables driving apparently mysterious behaviour. Of course the opposite result has been repeatedly confirmed - the inequalities are violated.
So now the question is, what does that mean exactly.
The standard response, shared by most physicists, is to shrug shoulders and accept that QM is 'spooky', and while we may not fully understand it, something real is going on.
However other smart people, including Bell, don't like that and insist that the spookiness can't be real, and there must be another explanation. Let's be clear, though, they are not disagreeing with either the maths or the experiment, just the interpretation.
One loophole is called superdeterminism. Gerard t'Hooft I think is fond of this one. Essentially the idea here is that there are hidden variables which operate so deterministically that every single event in the universe forever was predetermined at t=0. While we see things as random, because we can't predict them, and they seem to follow certain statistics, they are not. When I measure an electron as spin-up, it was always going to be spin-up, and its entangled counterpart was always going to be spin-down. Neither result is random and the particles do not need to exchange any information to be consistent. Of course this has some pretty profound philosophical implications - it basically means we have no free will or anything even approximating it.
There are also various other alternatives. Without going into detail, though, the mainstream view is that the alternatives (including superdeterminism) are not worth much, because they are no less weird than the standard approach they are trying to replace. For example, people have mucked around with hidden variables that are non-local. But what's the point of that? Wasn't the non-locality of QM integral to the problem we were trying to solve? Haven't you just made things worse?
Finally, my sense of Bell's various statements is that he didn't think he had the answer. He simply felt we are being a bit lazy in just assuming Copenhagen is true, and that there is a better explanation out there if we were just smart enough to find it. I think this part of his position is a completely defensible one, even if I think his refusal to countenance the standard answer was a bit eccentric.