Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

As a beginner I think The London system works well but don't abuse it, learn to explore. They hate it because it's abused

No, please listen to reason. Of course, you may be able to outplay them despite having wasted a move. It doesn't immediately lose but it doesn't challenge the opponent. The move doesn't do anything particularly useful.

Let's consider what the move does. It prepares b4 but that's terrible when black fianchettos the bishop on the diagonal. The queenside is horribly weak. The other plan is Bc4-Ba2 which is just a Delayed Bowdler Attack.and runs into e6-d5.

Even though it says it's about equal or slightly worse for white. The plans for black are actually very natural and typical of any Closed Sicilian, whereas white has a very passive position and no natural ideas to gain an advantage and often ends up with a more significant disadvantage later on as their setup is not well designed to counter black's normal Closed Sicilian style plans.

I'm checking the player database  According to the database, white is doing well in this line specifically:

This is still worse for white but the centre is difficult to deal with for a lot of players. However, in the vast majority of other lines, black is doing better or at least equal. The best move for black is g6 and even in the amateur database, black is winning the majority of games in this line. Not a good sign for white.

this forum is about the london how did it turn into the sicilian?

We have a handful of Sicilian players in this thread including myself.

Stylistically, the Sicilian vs London are two different tastes in games which could be part of the root cause of hatred. 

Sicilian players prefer counter attacking and imbalance wheres as the London can be dry.

Emu's Second Law : Sooner or later, all chess threads will mention the Sicilian.

Agreed.

I've won many games (including games against titled masters) by intentionally aiming for opening equality, then striving to outplay my opponents from there on out.

Dry opening equality, by itself, can be frustrating for some opponents to deal with - especially if you're up against a player who likes imbalanced, tactical games.

Sometimes, chess comes down to identifying the playing style that your opponent would least enjoy playing against. If he likes to trade - you make it hard to favorably trade. If he likes it quiet and slow - make it open and sharp. If he likes it sharp and open - make it slow and positional.

If he hates facing the London - play the London.

This play makes perfect sense with black. White has the 1st move advantage so black wants to equalise and then try for an advantage.

From the white perspective, this play makes no sense as white already has an advantage from being one move ahead. Rather than utilising this advantage, it throws it away.

Sure if you are more skilled than the opponent you can still win but the player with the white pieces would do best to play for their main opening trump which is the extra move.

Openings in which white strives for equality make no sense and are substandard.

If you are going to defend the a3 Sicilian then you may as well defend the Bowdler Attack.

Whoever said "this is great for white as white has managed to reach equality:"?

The "first move advantage" is an illusion, anyway.

Mainline theory is just White trying different ways to prove that the first-move advantage is unsurmountable - and Black continually proving that it isn't.

Sure, some openings may keep the struggle going longer. But they all fizzle out to equality, eventually (if both players are playing well).

It's just a matter of choosing which kind of "argument" you want to engage in, at the board.

Also you can't assume that playing dry, equal, boring positions will make the opponent play poorly. If that desperate hope of the opponent playing poorly fails you, then you have nothing to play for.

This isn't true as in every good opening by white, they have higher winrates, even at master level. This is the norm.

In correspondence, certainly, but in any time control slower than correspondence with humans on both sides of the board, White has a minor advantage. White can afford to make an inaccuracy or two before being in a worse position, whereas if Black makes an inaccuracy or two, Black is losing.

okay, that is actually understandable, but many people main the london and use it as their only weapon with white

Playing for equality in the opening does not mean "hope chess" - not to me.

It means finishing the opening with the confidence that your position is equal or better, but not worse. It means trusting your ability to match, or outplay, your opponent from that point onward.

The opening phase is just the first third of the game. There's still 66% of the game left to be played - and this is often where the vital mistakes will occur.

It's like cracking your knuckles and saying, "Okay, the opening phase is done. We've established our structures, and some key tension points and ideas are on the board. Now, let's see what you got ..."

Doing this per opponent specifically for the opening phase is not easy because it more or less assumes knowledge of 2-3 lines per opening, one positional, one sharp, an endgame line and so on.

In some cases it's possible to do it by reasonably assuming what someone is after when they play an opening. Eg play a restraining line vs The KID, a sharp line vs QGD, an endgame line vs the Tarrasch and so on. Don't give them the type of game that motivated them adopt the opening, try to create a slight discomfort.

It's not always possible but in a lot of cases it is, it also doesn't work against all opponents but in some cases it's obvious the opponent is not playing at full strength because they don't like the position, not because it's bad but because they don't like this type of play.

In which case it means there is nothing special about that opening in particular as you could substitute it with pretty much anything else and it will still be playable at club level. It's better to learn good opening practice amd get better at punishing bad openings or passivity.

Continuing to play an equal or worse opening only ingrains bad habits. It teaches that playing for a draw from an advantageous position is a good thing.

Black is not better. It's not determined that chess is a draw with best play. It's either a draw or a win for white. It's much harder to play for a win with black. Just because some people you know have a higher winrate with black, that doesn't apply to the vast majority of players.

On average, white has a much higher winrate than black. The anomaly is these kinds of passive openings that you talk about like London, and a3 Sicilian. If you're talking about these kinds of openings then yes you are right that black does have a higher winrate or that it is more often a draw.

Magnus makes up for trolling in the opening with immense talent and he also does it in a clever way so he actually reaches playable positions. Even so, he has still been punished for poor opening play.

The difference is that these openings are often equal or worse, not equal or better. At master level, the London is very often a draw or win for black when black just plays the opening correctly.

You play for equality in the opening. You play for equality in the endgame. That's actually how it works. This is the agenda of the opening.

A friend of mine says that it is a dull cowardly effeminate opening. He plays the "manly" Blackmar -Diemar Gambit regardless of whom he is playing. 

You were talking about chess being a draw with best play. You were not talking about club level specifically. With best play, chsss may very well be a draw but white has better winning chances from having moved first.

If you check the scores for all games, you can see that white wins more often than black, even in amateur games. The database results matter a lot more than your anecdotes as the database represents a much wider picture of game results.

In the lichess amateur's database it shows that white wins 50%, black wins 46%.

In the lichess master's database it shows that white wins 33% of games, black wins 24%.