As mentioned elsewhere, the average user probably doesn't know or care about JavaScript. They do know and care about simplicity and speed. Not having JavaScript (or only very little) often positively affects speed. (See Hacker News vs Redis on mobile for an example of this.)
When I visit Craigslist, it loads almost instantaneously, similar to how Hacker News does now, or Gmail used to years ago. This is not the case for sites that use JavaScript to position everything.
Perhaps I was. I used to use NoScript around the time I started using Gmail, but gave up at some point because I started having to disable it on almost every site I visited.
It certainly is for some (e.g. me and some people I know). I think quite a few people get pissed off at websites which do not have live content (it's live if it can't be cached; Craigslist content, e.g., can be cached) but require JS just to render the basic text. It doesn't help if those sites also make 100+ requests. And yes, some folks still prefer text-based browsers when possible. :) I do realize the latter make up quite a small percentage only, though...
In the sense that no JS = better performance on slower PCs - yes, I'd say that's a selling point.
My 70+ parents just listed and sold dozens of items in their spring cleaning - first time they used CL and they did it without my help. They might have had more problems if CL was "jazzed up".