I'm going to take a respectfully different perspective here and say that I'm not insulted by this.
While everyone's experiences will vary, my graduate program was obviously trying to push me into an R1. During my academic job search, I had many faculty, even some people on my committee, nudging me to seriously consider 1 or 2 year post-docs over non-R1 tenure-track positions. Fortunately, my adviser was very understanding and encouraging. So, I was ultimately able to go for the career that best suited what I wanted to start out with (a SLAC position).
If a person has been raised in a graduate program where research is most strongly emphasized and is surrounded by faculty and other grad students who "shine" for research alone, then I think it's easy to adopt a pessimistic perspective when reality sets in about a SLAC or R2 career. Here, research is just part of the balance, and frankly there can be times during the semester where it's near impossible to do much with research (when teaching load is up and/or combined with advising, mid-terms, and/or finals). This goes with the teaching, too. Many SLAC faculty are extraordinary educators who have decades of experience. For someone who might have more limited teaching experience, it can feel daunting at times to gain such impressive skill.
These thoughts noted, I do agree with the idea that to do well at a non-R1, a person has to take a more comprehensive assessment of their value and what is meaningful. During my first year in my SLAC position I failed with this. I took on a narrow focus on research and started to burn out. This year, though, I've been happily more balanced with a focus on my own health, hobbies I've neglected for far too long, and going on a short vacation during the semester. At work, I've also put deeper thought into teaching and am using my elective courses to explore areas of literature I'd like to gain insight into. So, my teaching and research do have some overlap.