I find that 6E discussions mostly take place with people who haven't played it or really even looked beyond a few early reviews that hit the biggest changes in the game (e.g. combat axe pixies). A massive portion of players never got past that and, likely, won't.
When looking at the rules, it helps to break it into pieces. I like SR6's take on augmentations far more than any prior version. Same with the action economy. The changes to spellcasting, decking, sprites, skills, nuyen costs, firearms... I like all of that.
The priority table is absolutely awful. Need to rebalance attributes, because right now it's best summarized as Triple-A: Always Attributes A. The karma and performance equivalents are far out of balance. SR6 will be much better the second they drop a karmagen or pointgen option.
I despise "big bullet" autofire where you are less likely to hit the target, but do massive damage if you do. SR5 had this right.
I don't like removing STR from melee weapon damage. Just a mess all around.
Summoning changes were good, but they desperately need to rebalance SR6 spirits. Yikes.
Trading modifiers for Edge? Meh. The modifiers needed a lot of work, they were a mess. I don't mind Edge, but the Edge Actions superpowers were a bad move. The 2-Edge limit? Again, meh. Not thrilled, but I wasn't in love with TableRun either.
AR/DR? I'm okay with SR6's armor class solution, but personally prefer armor as soak, even if the net result is similar. SR5 got this right. If I have to do AR/DR, I remove Edge from the game and add (AR-DR) to the attacker's pool. If one party has a net advantage, give that many rerolls. Simplified, no broken (or useless) superpowers, each individual point of armor matters, and it's clean.
So there is some bad, but the good changes outweigh those for me. SR is a game of awful systems and SR6 is what I consider the best of a bunch of bad choices.