Ordinals present a use case for Bitcoin: immutable data storage. The use case, I believe, that the core developers have tried to focus on is sound money (i.e., well-distributed, unconfiscatable, etc). I.e. that these use cases are at odds with each other. Hence, they have tried to implement mechanisms to prevent data storage.

Among other things, they operate on some basic realities:

• The larger amount of resources (mempool memory, hard drive space, bandwidth, etc.) required to run a node, the fewer people around the world can run a node. Thus, it works against the distributed nature of Bitcoin.
• The larger amount of data required to fill a block equals greater transaction fees. Thus, smaller UTXOs get priced out. Therefore, it becomes less useful for many of the individuals who want to use the chain as sound money.
  Since ordinals compete for block space and increase resource demands, they work against the sound money goal.

Is censorship of transactions bad for sound money? I absolutely believe so, thus, I want that to be minimized. However, it seems ordinals may have exploited a bug in the anti-spam mechanisms to enable them. From that perspective, miners excluding them seem more like a bug workaround than censorship. The anti-spam mechanisms in the core that do work already filter out tons of transactions. Are those censorship?

However, overall, I am less concerned about individual miner actions than the wider state of the network. Not all nodes will behave this way; thus, this behavior probably would not last (probably bad for business/sustainability), nor would it have a big enough effect on the larger network. Therefore, I support any and all mechanisms in the core code that prevent other use cases, and they will only work if placed directly in the core software itself.

The vitriol in the discussion seems quite enormous. In my opinion, based on the importance of sound money, I think the scale is quite lopsided in the wrong direction. Humans like to make everything about ethics or morality to change others' actions. But what it is really about is what kind of Bitcoin do you want? What things will achieve that outcome? A lot of people will disagree about that, but, to me, creating sound money is incomprehensibly more important. State control of money has been devastating to humanity and wrestling that from them should be top priority. Far more important than securing monkey jpeg ownership (which could be done in other ways that require far less than the most secure computer network ever to exist).

Thus, I want them to minimize the use cases that work against sound money, including Ordinals and other similar things.