Not speaking for anyone else, I think citing not enough hash rate is a valid concern. It's true that ultimately plebs decide what bitcoin is; but, in order to make a change without massive disruption to the network, a soft fork with overwhelming miner support is required. Otherwise plebs have to be willing to endure massive disruption at best - and possibly result in a permanent chain-split at worst.

Personally, I'm generally supportive of the idea that bitcoin should try to stay focused on being money, and I greatly appreciate the energy that you and others are putting into trying to make that happen. I like the idea of limiting OP_RETURN via consensus rules back to what was clearly the widely accepted default. I'm not as convinced about other changes, but regardless, I don't view what any of these changes would solve as being existential enough for me to be supportive of any disruption over it.

FWIW, I strongly suspect there are a significant number of others who generally share this perspective.