But they can and always will though. Isn't that what Nodes are about? If the network culturally decides that certain transactions are money and others aren't that's completely technically possible. And more, with Nostr that becomes even easier because people will choose nodes for their transactions based on culture.

You obviously know this, you just disagree with the direction it's being taken.

And that's completely fine too. Now with that said, or more specifically with the understanding that people, the masses, the votes because nodes are cheap to setup AND users can choose them specifically, i.e nodes can definitely decide Bitcoin's direction, that it's really just a cultural thing and not a technical thing, and thus nodes can and will always be needed to steer Bitcoin's direction, my question is:

Why aren't you inspiring the world for the change you want to bring to Bitcoin?

That's the part that I really don't understand. In other words, why are you just criticizing their arguments and not trying to understand them and perhaps accomodate them and create a better alternative with all sides considered?

In other words, what's your vision? What's your better alternative?

I think it is fair to say that nodes that do not engage in mining to not have a say in what gets confirmed. What I think the argument is centering around is why should node configurability be limited in such a way that particular transactions that node runners find detestable be relayed by their node.

If someone wanted to run a side chain shitcoin, a pot smoking monkey jpeg, or illegal/copyrighted material using gobbldeygook in op_return why should anyone be forced to relay that on their $85 lenovo?

I understand the dangers of a single dev client, but the clogging up op_return should also come under scrutiny for anyone serious about bitcoin's future as a monetary network as opposed to a public notary.