I guess I missed the memo that said discussion is bad now.

All I'm saying is, if you're asking someone, or a group of someones, to step in and wave a magic wand to make the bad things go away, that's not a particularly fruitful avenue of discussion.
Aside from that hurdle, if I were given the choice between:
a) a blockchain where it's cheaper to transact, but all the users on that network believed themselves to be in a position where they could tell me what I could or couldn't do,
or
b) a blockchain where it's a little more expensive, but all the users on that network had total respect for permissionless freedom,
Then sign me up for b)
I'm personally never going to see it any other way. If people did theoretically fork off to some totalitarian chain where they did somehow miraculously manage to prevent any form of non-transactional data being stored in a block, I'd want no part of it. When you start looking for ways to prevent others from transacting in the way they want to, it's only a matter of time before someone does the same to you. Those aren't the kind of ideals I came here for. I feel sorry for anyone who did.
DooMAD and darkangel11 won't say anything useful or meaningful regarding this matter and just deny everything.
Shoot the messenger if you like, doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Anyone who has looked at this issue in detail can usually spot the inevitable game of cat and mouse that would surely commence if you look to start closing off certain methods of appending non-transactional data to the blockchain. Not to mention the can of worms it opens when someone wants to propose a new scaling solution later down the line, but immediately runs into a brick wall when there's no way to implement it because you've shut off any possible extensibility in the protocol by trying to lock out the stuff you don't approve of.
So, the problem ultimately boils down to the fact that these people are determined and they're willing to pay above average fees to embed their crap in the chain. I don't see how you're meant to prevent those traits in others whilst simultaneously not crippling the protocol and annihilating censorship resistance in the process. And, if you're being honest with yourself, you don't have any answers to that either.
But sure, I'm the bad guy here. Cool.