Repulsive? "Not for me and my tastes, but you choose what floats your boat" is not the same as finding them repulsive.
I have close to a dozen big game rifles in the gun safe, and not a single one of them was manufactured after about 1974. Mostly a Sako Finnbear in 30/06 I purchased new in 74, several Husqvarna rifles I found new in the box when an old gunsmith's family sold off his business, and a couple of Aubrey White/Bill Leeper custom builds based that same early 70's Sako action and Husqvarna 1600/5000 action from the early 1960s. My grandfather's 1895 in 30 U.S. gets out hunting regularly when I'm hunting down by the river where 150 yards would be along shot - not the best hunting firearm I own, but there's quite a cachet to hunting with the same rifle my grandfather hunted the same area with a century ago.
There are a couple of AR15s in there as well, and even if Prime Minister Racist Black Face hadn't made it illegal I wouldn't be swapping in an upper in 300 Blackout or 6.5 Grendel to go hunting.
It's a matter of personal taste, not of how capable or how fast a rifle allows you to fire successive rounds.
I still prefer deeply blued steel and fine walnut, even while knowing that synthetic stocks and stainless steel are much easier to look after. And I'll stick with my Browning Superposed and Browning 2000 autoloader rather than any of the newer offerings with all the bling added to the metalwork and stocks with lines and curves never seen before about 20 years ago.
The question should perhaps be "Why are you offended either because somebody likes something new like that - or driven into a Millennial rage where you lapse into "hey Boomer" because some people like firearms with classic lines and looks that go back to before you were even a glint of lust in your daddy's eye?"
