I haven't played the first one, but I believe after fighting off an ambush at one point, Joel says that he recognised it for what it was because he'd done that sort of thing before. Suggesting that he'd killed a bunch of people for their stuff as well.
It's pretty clear, though, that the TLOU2 defenders really are just focussing on what they've been told. Joel kills a lot of people in the first game - that's bad, now, though it was good at the time. Joel kills the doctor - that's cold-blooded murder, now, though it's a fail-state requirement of the game because he kills you if you don't. To make the story for TLOU2 work, the game retcons Joel saving Ellie's life. It's no longer him defending himself from people trying to murder him, who have a plan that will definitely kill Ellie but is very unlikely to actually make a cure. It's now him not letting Ellie sacrifice her life to help all of humanity, a choice that has been pointed out the doctors didn't even give her, so her getting angry at Joel about it doesn't really work.
To be fair, as it ends with Joel lying and hiding from Ellie that they were going to kill her for a cure, that was going to stick with the players far more than optional notes they might not have even read. So missing that the cure was a sham was an easy thing to rewrite in the minds of most of the players. But I was talking with someone a few weeks back about how he'd loved the second game, and the sticking point I brought up about how shitty it is for a game to make you do things and then scold you for doing them, as if you had a choice if you wanted to keep playing the game, he actively defended. He seemed to think it was brilliant, and that it wasn't at all a problem that the only winning move was not to play.
So maybe TLOU2 is just like white guilt - some people like to be made to feel bad about choices they didn't even make. I think that's fucking stupid, but there seems to be a fair amount of these kinds of people out there.