that's not how new rules get introduced into Bitcoin anyway

But it is

Take segwit as an example

A big reason it was introduced was to block coinbase transactions that used covert asic boost

They used to be perfectly valid, and moreover, such transactions were popular among miners. But segwit put a stop to them

Censorship, pure and simple

We censored before and we can censor again. If the things being censored make bitcoin worse money then I'm in favor of it, because such censorship makes bitcoin better money, which is what I want: better money

You cannot just proclaim all those ordinals invalid because you would then fork away from nodes that never upgraded to "Luke's fix" version.

Sounds like you can do it with consensus

But Luke's narrative is to treat it as an "exploit" in the first place (only because he doesn't like it, and his likes and dislikes are irrelevant)

But they are relevant

Bitcoin's rules are whatever its node operators, collectively, want them to be

He wants rules that make inscriptions more difficult

That's a perfectly valid proposal and I support it too so that makes at least two of us

Consensus emerges with sufficient support, and that's when bitcoin's rules can change