Yes of course congested is always going to be the normal state of Bitcoin. We wouldn't want it any other way, because if it isn't congested that means people aren't using it. But there is a huge difference between congested with monetary transactions and congested with stupid crap like using it for cloud hosting of silly images.
There's obviously a difference between storing jpegs and doing monetary transactions, but as a Bitcoin user, I have absolutely no interest to know both. Just as meaningless a monkey might seem to you, the same meaningful seems a transaction moving a million dollars worth of bitcoin to me; zero, I don't care about the business of complete strangers, I only care about mine.
We are arguing about a malicious usage of this system for something it is not designed to be (a cloud storage) that is causing problems.
It is a cloud storage, more or less. No matter how it shouldn't be used likewise, it can be a very inefficient, expensive cloud storage. Miners, users, Satoshi himself, did make usage of it, when there was surplus in block capacity. Nothing really has changed since then, except the surplus. People need to transact, but there appear some fellows who want to make usage of this cloud, and are more generous than you. The problem lies with you.
But honestly, let's assume you censor -or as you call it "fix the exploit"- and make Ordinal transactions invalid; what if they adopt another encoding scheme, which wasn't "exploited", like OP_RETURN? What then? You'll soft fork and make OP_RETURN with data_size >= x invalid? What if they switch to completely indistinguishable monetary transactions? That's right. What if they send 0 coins to plethora of 256-bit addresses? Until when will you scrutinize other people's transactions to enforce your Bitcoin ideals?
Why can't we accept that a fool and his money are soon parted, but want to part them ourselves?