I do actually agree with you though. Core can implement whatever they want to implement regardless of what the economic majority wants
I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.
What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.
They should have introduced BIP65 using a hard fork, since introducing it as a soft fork allows them to circumvent the processes of consensus that a hard fork would have necessitated.
I am
disgusted by your hypocrisy
There is no hypocrisy there. I still disagree with how BIP65 was implemented. I also still disagree with RBF, since it weakens zero confirmation in favor of strengthening layer two payment channels. They did this without the appropriate time and consensus that I think should have been appropriate for such a contentious change, considering their previous position on contentious issues I also find their actions hypocritical.
Furthermore I can disagree with all of these changes, even find them disgusting and hypocritical. This does not change however that the Core implantation does still have the freedom and the right to implement whatever they want, that does not imply however that their actions are not wrong or that I can not disagree with them.