old nodes are handed stripped data to BYPASS a consensus mechanism that would otherwise have gotten segwit blocks rejected
thats why luke JR done what he done. it was not a softfork in a sense of consensus. it was a bypass to avoid a consensus event. luke JR even said so himself that it bypasses the requirement of a consensus
"consensus" requires the agreement of all participants. that's why it's either "opt in" or "opt out". i don't care what luke jr says, and i'm guessing you're mischaracterizing what he said.
as long as miners don't partition the network by refusing to build on a soft fork's chain, then that soft fork is compatible with the existing consensus. this is why segwit nodes and legacy nodes coexist on the same network. if segwit violated consensus, segwit nodes (and all their blocks/transactions) would have been rejected by the bitcoin network.
maybe one day you will actually start to care less about devs and care more about the network
on the contrary, my entire point is about network consensus and has nothing to do with developers. you, on the hand, seem extremely focused on the core devs and their evil ploys to take away your ability to "vote".......