This is going to sound like I was born yesterday, but I really am shocked by the Canon apologists in this thread tying themselves in knots attempting to explain why customers should be fine with 30p when they want 24p.
The gist I'm getting from the "apologists" is more along the lines of, "If you need 24P for professional reasons, you'll have no problem getting a camera that provides it, Canon or otherwise. If the M6II doesn't have it, but you want it, you're not the target market for the M6II. Amateur stills shooters that want basic video functionality for home use likely are the target market. Sure, it's a head-scratcher, but if the 'professional results' you need can only come from 24P, you can easily justify purchasing the product that provides it."
Honestly, I haven't met a Rebel/M shooter who gives two hoots about frame rate in video, let alone is aware that there's a meaningful difference. When the curious exploration of a feature's absence turns into lamentation and criticism, it sounds more like budget-constrained video "pros" who want what they need from an amateur/enthusiast stills camera.
(Honest Question) Who is more closed-minded: die-hard brand apologists, or those who criticize a brand for not giving them what they demand rather than just buy what they need from another brand? Food for thought...