This is my take: I don't get the bad part. All I know is that blocks contain information. Whether that's financial or arbitrary is none of my business. Each byte comes at the same cost, regardless of how it's used. I noticed a lot of toxic response to this Ordinal theory, especially from some Twitter accounts like
this one. Some Bitcoiners appear to impose their morality upon how the protocol should be used. Do I need to remind that we're talking about a freedom protocol here?
We have spam attack then we have spam attack with an incentive. This is the later.
In a spam attack when someone is pushing garbage into the blockchain (as it is a "freedom protocol") the fee market kicks in and increases the cost for them. They won't have the incentive to continue pushing the garbage to the blockchain.
When there is incentive (meaning a useless token with actual price that they can sell for real money to cover the cost of the spam attack) then the fee market is only harming the real regular uses trying to send bitcoin around since the attacker is earning money to spam the network.
This is not the OP_RETURN discussions at all. This is that altcoin that used to be "mined" by pushing its hash into bitcoin chain. As long as it was being pumped, they spammed the hell out of bitcoin blockchain and as soon as it got dumped the spam died too.