It's like modern fighter jets which are designed to be unstable so they are more manoeuvrable, aided by the computer controls to stop that instability being dangerous. If the computer systems fail, the pilot will not cope and the jet will crash and burn.
The JS community is unstable, but in a way that produces useful things rapidly. Stuff just gets thrown out there and the good parts stick. Certain dampening factors protect you from the most dangerous effects of this (unless you live your life at the bleeding edge) like the jet's computer controlled micro-interventions protecting the pilot form how jittery the airframe actually is. Occasionally this goes wrong and the protection fails. "Leftpad" was one such matter that caused thing to crash and burn temporarily. Luckily unlike an expensive jet hitting the ground, the damage from such incidents is relatively easy to repair after the fact.
The throw-it-out-and-see-if-it-works part isn't the only issue with the JS community but it is a significant one and does relate to some of the others, though one that does provide some benefit in the form of forward momentum.
Their productivity is directly related the to vast ecosystem of packages available. Those packages were written and maintained by the community. They are rebutting the assertion that this community is bad. It can't be that bad if they're helping millions of developers solve real problems around the world.
I don't think it's fair to victims of abusive relationships for you to use this analogy: the truth is far darker and more complex, and survivors deserve more credit than you're giving them. I could give you my story as an example in case you haven't ever been exposed to this kind of abuse, but maybe it is enough for me to say we should all think twice before using such an extreme and unique scenario in our arguments.
