Absolutely disagree. Bitcoin doesn't censor for the simple reason that it is the right thing to do. If you don't like censorship-resistant always-no-matter-what cash, there's a host variety of cryptocurrencies I can direct you to.
It's not cash. Again, my opinion. Anyone is free to agree or disagree.
According to you. According to someone else, they might pose a threat to the P2P cash model.
Then, that someone is free to suggest what should be done to change/stop the threat and the community will decide the course of action.
If you want the system to scale, work on scaling. Not on censorship. That's the appropriate response.
I don't disagree. But how good has that done us? We don't have a solution for scaling on L1 that wouldn't affect the decentralized nature of Bitcoin and which wouldn't require much more storage at the same time.
I would very much would like to ignore Inscriptions but sadly I can't - Every now and then I am faced with 100 sat/vB fees if I want to make a payment of a couple of dollars to any kind of service. How can I choose to ignore them when they have a huge impact on the core functionality of Bitcoin?
It's already been ignored, thus Ordinals led to Runes. Tomorrow Runes will lead to something new, and then we can all enjoy our censorship-resistant Bitcoin at 500-700 sat/vByte.