Point out the supposed lies.

Doubling down on stupid.

You're trying to make a point relative to a specific highly technical conversation involving a breakthrough distributed consensus protocol with very complex design, that is massively disruptive (thereby having many enemies) and has a very complex attack surface by conjuring some sort of metaphor to everyday "rules"? You're going to have to do better to consider yourself an your opinions to be informed and valuable.

Exactly. It's like just the woke defending big pharma jabs and forced masking. I'd argue that more heart and less brains is not something to be envied at any level. For this highly technicsl code and game theory there is no place for emotion. For me the 55% "consensus" threshold, absolutely divisive vilificarion of dedicated cypherpunks and flippantly and impatiently rushing into a fork is an attack. Some are innocently getting swept up in it because they are nervous new holders and think they are smarter than they really are, and some are very likely bad actors that want to weaken bitcoin - state actors, "competing" Shitcoiners and butthurt /r/buttcoiners. They can't argue the merits so they focus on slandering long dedicated developers. And none seem to want to confirm they will be selling all of their bitcoin to buy their future shitcoin to show their conviction. Low information high time preference people always have to learn the hard way. See BSV and BCH.

You're "defending freedom money" with censorship and low threshold supposed consensus? Yeah, no.

Electronic cash requires privacy. "Temporarily" limiting underlying features that improve privacy is an attack. Simple majority low threshold consensus is an attack. You'll learn, or the people you influence to sacrifice their bitcoin will learn and you'll collect your paycheck for undermining the good works of others.

We've had over a decade of "I'm new to bitcoin and here to save it". Nobody is falling for your low value takes except morons. I sense either the same extreme and immature hubris or an alternative motive. Fed? Shitcoiner? Doesn't matter. Irrelevant. You'll learn the easy way or the hard way. If it does manage to fork and survive more than a block, be sure to put your money where your mouth is by selling all of your bitcoin and investing it all in your new shitcoin fork. Shitcoiners never learn.

Try harder shit-lib.

If you're going to make a claim like that, you'll need to provide some sort of source. I can't find anything even close to your "tens of thousands" claim.

"I'm not a developer but I'm going to weigh in on a highly technical modifications to the first ever distributed governance protocol governing the first ever true freedom money because I have an opinion." Good stuff. Good luck with that.

"iT's eXaCtLy tHe sAmE aS tHe rEd bLuE gAmE tHeOrY!!!" yeah, sure it is, IF choosing red also signals your consent to on demand anal probes and surveillance. It sets a dangerous precedent for random governance and disabling/limiting privacy features, limiting bitcoin based smart contracts and future impulsive chain splits/forks. All in an attempt to limit spam that will still be possible and has been possible for ages via many different mechanisms. If you still don't get it, justify the 55% "consensus" threshold. This smells a lot more like a shitcoiner motivated attack than a purist "bitcoin is solely money" principled stand. Bitcoin Script was there from the very beginning and taproot has been in the works for ages. You want a better bitcoin than what is being maintained by core for over a decade? Chose from one of the 50 million shitcoins or roll your own. Reducing the "consensus" threshold proves this is a contentious attack against real consensus by definition and is against the well established bitcoin ethos. Retards are here to "fix" bitcoin. Enjoy your hastily implemented minority fork and uniting with your malcontent comrades in the BCH and BSV crowds.