2.Bc4 Sicilian

It's not the most testing line but a good player with white should get a roughly equal position from the opening. It avoids all the sharp theory in open Sicilians. You say you dread playing the Sicilian because of several 'nonsense' lines, especially 2.Bc4 which you say is 'abysmally bad', 'so annoying', 'trolling'. Why you dread facing this stuff if it is nonsense? 

Because it is objectively bad, but it takes time to get an advantage with black. Also, it is a way to refuse to play chess. I'm just annoyed about by its persistence at lower rating levels and I'm perplexed people still play it at higher levels. I know it can transpose to better fighting lines, but it's still horrible

The psychological impact it has on you to see this move is precisely why people play it. You go 1.c5 hoping for your favourite open Sicilian set up with black but instead you get a completely different type of game. OK, it's not forcing or dangerous for white, but it is very far from terrible. It is not 'a way to refuse to play chess'... it's just a different approach to how you like to play. A couple of analogies...if you lose a race it's no good complaining that the other runner didn't run gracefully. If your football team plays a beautiful attacking passing game but loses a match to a team that plays defensively and with long balls it is no good complaining that they didn't play stylishly. You have to beat whatever is put in front of you. 

There's some truth to that. The good thing is that,  2.Bc4 is such a disgrace, it eventually stops being alluring for serious players. A "surprise weapon" at higher levels as an "Anti-Sicilian"? Maybe, But most masters would rather play more aggressively with white. At some point I hope to reach a level in which i rarely, if ever, see that abomination.

Still, it's interesting people love it so much. I think it's the nefarious "attack on f7 as quickly as possible" influence and not anything remotely Anti Sicilianesque at lower levels, but YMMV.

The only way to beat the 2. Bc4 Sicilian is study Opening Explorer and Games from database. 

How come a very early move which develops a piece without creating any weaknesses, and putting any pressure to the opponent as well, can be "abysmally bad"?

This is something that only chess geniuses know.

Super-GM Fedoseev playing against another 2600-class GM under a regular time control, and winning with this abysmally bad move... What a lucky guy!

Especially 30.Rfxf5 is clearly a refusal to play chess.

Against move orders without early ...e6 white can still transpose into Sozin Attack. Also, Grand Prix is possible. And as for "abysmally bad" lines, I'd prefer to reserve this term for 2.Ba6, 2.f3, 2.Bb5, 2.g4, 2.a4, 2.h4, 2.Nh3, 2.Bd3 and early queen sorties. Just about everything else is playable (yes, including 2.Be2 and 2.Na3)

2.Bc4 is certainly enough not white's best move, but it's not even "bad"by a long shot.

2. Bc4 isn't really bad at all. I mean, someone might want to play with d3 and f4. They usually play a3 to encourage a6 and b5, when the hope is that black will play Bb7 and the B on a2 will come alive and win the game.

Probably, the simple e6 and d5 equalises, in the absence of Nc3, but personally I'm more ambitious so I do play b5 but just not Bb7. I like winning against it by blocking the a2 bishop out of the game.

Well, I'm far from being a titled player. Yet, I'm en-titled to my own opinion backed up by data. The move isn't good. The abysmal part is my take on it. In any case, let's be serious... There's hardly any reason to play 2.Bc4. Can it work? Sure. I just don't see the point in trying to be annoying in non competitive play.

A move that gives away like 1/3 pawn unit is not "abysmally bad", period.

Well, I think it's a good reason never to play the Sicilian at lower levels, where it's so prevalent. Also, I dislike the Sicilians because of their open nature, so there you go. It becomes very annoying to have to face 2.Bc4 lines all the freaking time when you play non competitively and are hoping for something far more interesting. But alas, it seems being annoying is far more alluring for some.

I'm under the impression that "refuse to play chess" in this case means "refuse to play an open tactical game". If you don't like chess, why not specialize in puzzles?

i hate tactics, which means I genuinely dislike puzzles, so I don't mean "refuse to play a tactical game". If anything it's more "refuse to play traditional good interesting lines"

What exactly makes a traditional line more interesting? And if it's not the potentially closed character of the game, what exactly annoys you about Bc4?

That, c3 Sicilian, Grand Prix, open Sicilians with various "attacks" and many more are all legitimate tries to catch black out. Black shouldn't play the Sicilian if s/he's not prepared for it, that's true.

An interesting line in the Sicilian is one where you have a traditional fighting setup. Knights out, mainly, maybe with some luck a bind and maybe a bishop attacking good squares on the kingside. 2.Bc4 does none of that. Mind you, i didn't say 3.Bc4 or anything like that, I just said 2.Bc4.

Also, while I dislike open positions, I want to play a Sicilian for its open nature and then I get 2.Bc4. It makes me question the reasons why I even play chess...

Everything is legitimate (as long as it's a legal move), but 2.Bc4 robs the Sicilian of its beauty. Imagine what the world of chess would be like if 2.Bc4 was popular in high level chess. Imagine no true Najdorfs, Dragons, Kans, no Sveshnikovs... nothing, just because white decided to play 2.Bc4. Wouldn't that upset you as a chess fan? I would be really upset.