In the company I work at there's a rule that if you're caught working nights or weekends you're getting crap over it, you never get rewarded for "something cool you did last sunday" or anything like that, and there's no crunch time.

If you put those conditions in place, are you still against deadlines? Because we've tried not having them, and collectively agreed it's worse. A team that has no deadlines performs worse than a team that sets deadlines for itself. You might've noticed this in your personal life with your own motivation.

For anyone that doesn't want to ignore the fact that humans are way more productive with deadlines than without, the question is what do you do when it looks like you're going to miss the deadline, so that this balance is a healthy one between motivation and doesn't go into overwork. In this mode of operation "meeting the deadline" means cutting scope instead of working more hours. It means pulling another team into the project, it means leadership being OK with cutting scope, etc.

But pretending like we're all intrinsically motivated and deadlines are harmful is papering over the fact that what's harmful is how you deal with failed deadlines, not the fact that you're aiming your work to be completed at a certain date.