What is the counter argument to the fact that removing the OP_RETURN limit doesn't have any impact on block weight or the capacity to run a full node at home?

The way I was conceptualising this is the same as the block wars, where Big Blockers suggested that running nodes at home on common personal hardware isn't a necessary function of Bitcoin, and that we should be satisfied that groups of people pooling their resources or companies who need to can run full nodes to enforce consensus rules.

But this isn't the argument from those who want to remove the limit. For them it's a matter of a different strategy to scale Bitcoin to serve whatever function people want to use Bitcoin for in a completely value neutral culture. For them they see this as more akin to the permissionless roots of Bitcoin, and the fact that even if Satoshi did believe in the concept of spam it doesn't matter. Satoshi is not a prophet or divine. That is not a ludicrous idea and it doesn't mean Bitcoin is dead.

So I want to know how non-financial transactions can completely crowd out financial transactions when:

I was a big blocker, so I want to be on the right side of history this time. Help me understand!