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.
You're missing the point. Sure, theoretically we can softfork and "fix the exploit" if there's enough demand. But, the Ordinal users can find another loophole to store their data, and it'll probably be worse for the rest of us. Imagine if Ordinal users bloated the UTXO set instead of using tapscript. That'd be a verification nightmare, and I'm sure they can handle it financially!
There. Is. No. Room. For. Censorship. The more you try to censor what you deem as "spam", the more you're pushing that spam to become indistinguishable from monetary transactions.
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.
Question: what should we do if instead of Ordinal users there were "legitimate users" who used Bitcoin as cash? Censor a percentage of those, or work on scaling?
Once more, what we are presently experiencing is the inevitable outcome of Bitcoin's nature.