And if its not an abuse of fonts to use them as icon packs, its an abuse of the users who wants to use their bandwidth for better things (e.g. cat gifs). I have them disabled and my day is full of fun: What this "f" means? What happens when I click "ff" or "p" or what not? And some are kind enough to provide alt texts, which is soooo helpful: https://imgur.com/cHdSxcO
In practice I don't consider it an anti-pattern to include icons in fonts. Fonts are designed in such a way that they're pretty convenient to use for icons.
There are of course other approaches now available, and they should probably be used preferentially. But it's much like complaining here that you have blocked images, and therefore can't see any images. It's your choice, and I'm glad you have it, but…
Why would you do that to yourself? What's the benefit? A couple KB?
"Letters are things, not pictures of things." -- Eric Gill
Github did a great writeup on the perils of using fonts for icons. One reason was the one mentioned here, users overriding them with their own preferred fonts.
SVG icons are better than icon fonts in pretty much every way. The only example I can think of where an SVG could be considered worse is if the icon is particularly complex. Even then, the only thing that is worse is file size. At that point, a PNG is probably better, anyway.
The amount of optimization that went into font technology and algorithms, all the way from the binary file to the graphics card, can never compare with an XML-based file format.