Replying to What is the Logic Behind No Poles?

I know this topic has been discussed a lot on NS, and I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this, but I thought of something that confuses me. Freeskiers are always trying to get as far away from aerials (I know it's kind of a joke, but it's true) and become a whole different sport. Some of the most adamant about that are those that don't use poles, like the kids that look up to E-Dollo and Phil and hate triples, anything that resembles a technical, "aerial" type trick, and those people make up most of the no-poles skiing population. But I've always thought of one of the key defining aspects of skiing was that we are still skiers, not just just gymnasts with skies on our feet, like aerialists. And they don't use poles. Whenever I'm trying to distinguish between freeskiing and olympic freestyle (before Sochi) I always say that we free skiers use poles, just one little difference to show that we are a different sport that usually gets the message to people who don't know our sport. So why are people who are so against aerials almost trying to get back closer to it. Sorry, this was extremely rambling and probably pretty confusing, since I am having trouble organizing my thoughts, and my point isn't very important. But still, I thought I should share this and see what NS thinks. Also, skiing with no poles makes you look like a fucking gorilla.