I am slightly puzzled as to why threads like these become quite as antagonistic as they do. I have read this thread in one go and there are an awful lot of "so you are saying that.." type comments when the post to which they are responding bears absolutely no relation to the interpretation put on it. It seems like people have an assumption about that attitude of people who take a different approach and impose that assumption on whatever the other person says.
I think a lot of the polarisation of opinions comes from the slightly illogical tendency to lump all sorts of practices together under the name "routine" when there are actally a huge number of variations and motivations behind those routines.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a parent coming to understand their baby and putting in place a routine which predicts the needs of that particular child. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a parent coming to understand that a child is struggling with a particular issue, whether that be sleep, feeding, tummy-time, whatever, and putting some sort of structure in place so the child develops and awareness of how things work. A routine can be child-led - it isn't automatically the devil's own work, which does seem to be the attitude of a lot of parents who describe themselves as baby-led or attachment parents.
What I do struggle with, and I suspect this was the point of the OP although it could have been clearer, is the imposition of an entiely arbitrary routine on a very young baby before the parents have had time to gain any sort of understanding their particular individual baby's needs and personality. I know someone who imposed a GF type routine from day one (although my understanding is that GF does not advocate leaving a hungry newborn to cry which is what they did) and followed it to the letter, refusing to feed the baby more frequently than three-hourly and refusing to pick her up during the night if she cried. I was gobsmacked at the approach they took and the reasoning behind it (very old-school, rod for your own back type theories). I also know a couple of mums who persisted with routines which were clearly, and by their own admission, not working, simply because that was the routine they had thought up and they were going to persist until it did work - there was no adjustment made for the emerging picture of the baby's wants and needs.
I think most posters on this thread who have chosen to develop routines, have quite clearly done so with their child's needs in mind. I have seen little that suggests a "sod you, you will sleep for three hours now" attitude, although this seems to be inferred by some other posters. However, I have to say that I am horrified by the post asserting that the one month-old was manipulative. Sorry to whoever said that, and this is not something I say lightly, but you are quite simply wrong. A one month-old, even the most advanced one month-old ever born, is simply not capable of being manipulative. At the absolute highest I would imagine a young baby's instinctive reasoning might be something like "mum cuddles, warm, nice, mmmmmm. Oh, no mum cuddles, cold, not nice, waaaaaaaah." Manipulative? I think that is an awful thing to say.
FWIW I bradly consider myself to be an attachment parent. We have never had a strict routine, although bedtime has been around the same time since he was about 4 months. I use a sling, co-slept on and off and generally let his cues lead the way. If he had shown signs of wanting a more structured approach then that is what we would have done.