That honestly doesn't make as much sense as it may seem. Since when are a stylistic choice and an objective loss in quality mutually exclusive?
Consider lens flare. That's an artifact of a specific technology, so pervasive that it has become a part of our audiovisual culture. It is often recreated when it doesn't naturally happen, even on media where it simply can't happen. It is one example that imitating a different technology is a valid and common artistic technique.
Consider applying a sepia, black-and-white or CRT screen filter to an image (or part of it). That's quite undeniably an objective loss in quality. If not a style choice, what is it?
Clearly the general rule is that imitating the look-and-feel of a different, often obsolete, often objectively worse technology is a legitimate way to evoke the feelings that the audience associate with that technology (with its period, often). I think one would be hard-pressed to argue why SD is an exception to this rule.