Chromatic aberration

Can't think of how it's called right now, but the one that turns old pixel art graphics into splotchy impressionist water color paintings, in DOSBox for example.

hq2/3x?

Not sure but check out the in-game screenshots for Simon the Sorcerer 25th Anniversary Edition to see what I mean (they call it "HD" filter there... XD).

(Ok, I take back "impressionist" but "water color" seems fitting.)

- "Lens defect simulator" (aka Chromatic Aberration) - The only thing CA emulates is something irrelevant to video games (it makes zero sense in a medium that's 100% rendered and has no light capturing cameras, which is what CA requires to exist). The only time you'll encounter significant CA in real life is with heavy magnification related divergence such as like satellites, telescopes and microscopes (and even then most of that too can be corrected in software). So not only is this effect completely unrelated to graphics rendering gaming or what the human eyeball sees (or what your in-game avatar should be seeing), a lens defect isn't even something you'll want to see unless you're actually playing a game with a half-broken robot avatar.

- "Migraine simulator" (aka Film Grain) - Because you just spent $1,000 on a new PC to be reminded that "realism" = ageing defects of a non-existent silver-halide based 35mm film in a rendered game with no light capturing cameras or film somehow makes 'sense'...

- "Monitor Backlight failing simulator (aka Eye Adaptation / Auto Exposure) - This one is so dumb it's actually taken top spot from CA for sheer ridiculousness. You've already got this effect naturally, ie, play a dark game like Thief or a dark cave in Skyrim in a dark room and spend 10 minutes in a dark area, then move to a light one that causes the screen to go much brighter, and your eyes will already be adapting to your own monitor. Why would you want to double up and add a second fake "layer" that's time-compressed by a completely stupid factor of 1000:1 on top of what's happening anyway? Instead of being some "clever" and "immersive" effect, it just looks like the devs are trying to mimic a failing TFT CCFL backlight for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

- "Giraffe with a broken neck / waddling penguin simulator" (aka badly done Head Bob). This isn't technically post-processing, but I still find it quite remarkable that 90's games like Thief got it right that real head-bob = a very subtle "flick" when your feet touch the floor in a full on sprint, whilst after 20 years of gaming evolution, head bob still resembles something with which you'd be immediately rushed to hospital for an urgent neck / spinal operation if you were to actually see the world move like that in real life...

As for the three you mentioned - "Myopia simulator" (Depth of Field), "Crap console simulator" (Motion Blur) and "Supernova simulator" (Bloom), I always turn the first two off and usually Bloom as well unless it's a very subtle effect.

Pointillism? (Which is Neo-impressionism.)

Bloom KILLED Oblivion for me when it was first released. Now I turn off Post processing and use a shader config.

As for CA, that was the FIRST thing I thought of when reading the OP. I knew he wasn't including it, but it is indeed the D'Artagnon to the the Three Musketeers of DoF, Motion Blur and bloom.

I always disable motion blur, depth of field, flares, film grain, vignetting and fringing (AKA "chromatic aberration") if given the options to. I only disable glow/bloom if it's overdone and there isn't an option to scale it down to tolerable levels.

Basically I disable any effect that simulates an undesirable element when I'm composing landscape photography shots.

Last time there was a thread about this I mentioned this problem visible on the right side.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f60/killerog/3-3.jpg

EDIT: Yes, lens flare.

You forgot about these :

AMD TressFX
NVIDIA HairWorks
NVIDIA TurFX

The lens flare?

(I was going to joke and ask about the stupid watermark, but that's just Photobucket being trash and trying to force its users into giving them money).

I actually like bloom usually. I know that's heresy in PC gaming for some people, but oh well. I agree it can often look too boosted or silly, but lighting tends to look way too flat without it usually. Similarly it is possible for to like depth of field, when it's done well. If used for very distant areas and not to blur shit literally right around you in the foreground then I can dig it. Witcher 3 had good depth of field iirc, if you used the right options. I agree motion blur always sucks though.

As for others, I really hate the post-processing AA that softens the whole image nowadays, and then people tend to use massive sharpening filters from Reshade or whatever to make up for it, leaving the whole image looking like a processed mess IMO. I tend to just go without AA when TAA or FXAA are the only options. At 1440p no AA is usually okay, and much better than blur/sharpened city. SMAA can look good though.

Also DLSS looks like processed trash and it amazes me some people see it as a positive feature of nVidia's 2000 series cards.

motion blur is the bane of my video game existence. depth of field is a second. lens flare can also be bad.

I've never been a full-on hater of bloom effects. In the hands of competent game developers, it's done in such a way that it's easy to ignore and (for those that don't like it) often able to be turned off in an options menu. But in the hands of lazy developers who have no idea what they're doing, something as simple as the ground a character walks on could be sun-levels of eye melting awfulness to behold.