It's a fundamentally flawed approach in my opinion; viewing the users of a language as a single unified user base is a mistake. Various projects and groups will inevitably have vastly different use cases, and thus needs and considerations.
For example, I liberally mix C, C++, D, and occasionally other languages within a single code base on my personal projects. For sanity, I choose to observe my own consistent style across all languages when doing so. This obviously doesn't match common practice for any of the languages in question, but thankfully none of them attempt to impose the opinions of their designers on me.
I view languages being concerned with code formatting as a form of scope creep. A language should facilitate good code and communication by thoughtfully designing the syntax and providing useful constructs to the programmer. That's already an incredibly difficult problem - trying to tackle additional interpersonal or organizational issues is far too much, can't possibly accommodate everyone, and is bound to have unexpected negative consequences.
Put another way, core infrastructure should nearly always be as unopinionated as possible. Stick to as narrow a design goal as is reasonably possible and execute on it as well as possible. For a language, that means faithfully translating whatever I throw at it into machine code unless there is a legitimate technical barrier in the way of doing so.
> It really grinds my gears when precious time is wasted on styling issues when there is no technical reason for either side.
If this is happening it's indicative of an organizational or managerial problem. Any given project should have a clearly defined (and consistently enforced) code style, ranging from "use gofmt" to "follow PEP 8" to "adhere to our internal style guide".