Whilst I am against WYSIWYG's and drag-drop tools for client-side web development, there are legitimate reasons for this such as the lack of semantics and pissing on accessibility.
With something like Git I'm unaware of any LEGITIMATE reason if the result is the same. THIS is where to me it sounds like going from "doing things right" to "pointless elitism".
The tool used should match the task complexity, and whilst it is VERY easy to fall into the trap of "false simplicity" -- simplifying things beyond the needs of actually getting the job done right -- I just don't see how using a WYSIWYG for Git fits said description.
There are a LOT of command line tools that it's easier/faster to set up, configure and use. There are a LOT of GUI tools that are the same way. It's a case of right tool for the right job...
... and given my (horrible) experiences with Git where it just seems to be a tool for project managers to not manage a blasted thing anymore, instead spending half the day in meetings sucking up to superiors and the other half playing Farmville?
Yeah, I'm not sure how it would even make a difference. To me Git was definitely a tool where the command line was painfully obtuse in a bad 1970's *nix console sort of way. I wanted to waste time dicking around with esoteric poorly documented shell commands, I'd drag out the Trash-80 Model 12 and boot up Xenix.
It's like the people who criticize the use of tools like cPanel or ISPConfig. I can understand the hate for cPanel since it's a steaming pile of dung, but I can also understand why people are drawn to it given what configuring Apache or its kine entails.
... and again, unlike with HTML/CSS it's not like the end result makes ANY difference to anyone working with it.