There is so many things you said that are just plain wrong and it awfully reminds me of what this guy said:
https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/929808394487320577

Sorry, I was trying to use the bridge analogy to describe spam effects on the Blockchain and obviously didn't do a good job 🙂

What I meant to say was when spam gets into the blockchain it bloats utxo set and the the size in a harmful way. Some of the spam generates unspendable utxos that need to be kept forever and the size od the blocks consisting of financial transaction is generally much smaller then a block with spam transactions.
I tried to poorly describe this by saying that spam cargo is insecure as in parts of it fall of the truck and stay on the bridge.

The facts are spam is determental to utxo set and chain size whether you or I like it or not.

In afditiom, BIP 110 doesn't decide who gets to cross the bridge based on the cargo content, but the cargo size.

I'd say BIP 110 kicks off the ones whose cargo is not secure and could fall off to the bridge and stay there once they are gone, if you know what I mean.

I have non-issue with high fees and BIP 110 has nothing to do with them.

Fair point for OP_RETURN being pushed at consensus level from policy.

Fees are not solution for spam, otherwise we would not have such a big increase in UTXO set and chain size. Fees influence how fast will your transaction be included in the block, they don't determine if your transaction is valid.

Spam comes and goes because it's worthless scam, but the bloat stays forever.

It makes you wonder why are spammers pushing to have their spam on BTC. Maybe because it's the most decentralized network and will store their spam forever?
The irony is that with enough spam, the node will become increasingly harder to run, reducing the number of nodes and decentralization effectively making BTC the same as other networks.

So we can debate and theorize here what is spam, what is Bitcoin even, but reality doesn't care about our opinions. It's happening right before our eyes.

Fair point for OP_RETURN being pushed at consensus level from policy.

Fees are not solution for spam, otherwise we would not have such a big increase in UTXO set and chain size. Fees influence how fast will your transaction be included in the block, they don't determine if your transaction is valid.

Spam comes and goes because it's worthless scam, but the bloat stays forever.

It makes you wonder why are spammers pushing to have their spam on BTC. Maybe because it's the most decentralized network and will store their spam forever?
The irony is that with enough spam, the node will become increasingly harder to run, reducing the number of nodes and decentralization effectively making BTC the same as other networks.

So we can debate and theorize here what is spam, what is Bitcoin even, but reality doesn't care about our opinions. It's happening right before our eyes.

Fair point that OP_RETURN is being brought to consensus from policy, but it still doesn't change the fact that BIP 110 doesn't descriminate per data type, but per data size.

It would be great if the fees were a way to limit spam, but they are not. Fees decide how fast a transaction will get included in the block, not if it's valid.
If fees could limit spam, we would not have such a big increase in utxo set and blockchain size since 2023, roughly when gamified spam (Inscriptions , BRC-20, Runes, etc.) started.

What incentive does a node have to relay and store spam? Unless a node runner wants to spam in which case why not use another chain that does this much better and is not hostile to it?
Maybe because Bitcoin network is truly decentralized and there is value in storing something on it forever, which cannot be said for any other chain. If that's true, the irony is that with more and more spam, the utxo set and the chain size will increase to levels that nodes will be increasingly hard to run, decreasing decentralization until Bitcoin becomes just like other chains.
Spam comes and goes because it's worthless, not because fees stoped it. But the utxo bloat and increased chain size stay forever.

So we can debate here what is spam, what is the purpose of Bitcoin and pretend that fees are going to stop spam, but reality doesn't care about what we think. It's happening right before our eyes.

You can treat white paper as the specification that was used to implement the protocol through code. Of course you won't find mention of money or cash in the code, it's C++.

Yes! By codifing the threshold for data size (cargo size) we ensure the protocol (bridge) survives!
I fully agree this should not be changed at the whim of any traveler and it is regretfull that it was changed by unintended consequences of upgrading the protocol (bridge), so let's bring it to where it was.

Per my response to Fox trot's bridge analogy, BIP doesn't have an opinion of the data type, only the size. Same as bridge doesn't have an opinion on cargo, only the size of the cargo.

Yes, the bridge is a good analogy. You rightly say it doesn't care about the type of cargo, only the load. This is exactly what BIP 110 proposes. It doesn't distinguish between the type of data (cargo), only the load (data size).
Currently the load is too much for the bridge, so it puts a constraint that was already present on the sign in front of the bridge about max weight (mempoool policy op_return limit) to keep the bridge from collapsing.

But it does describe what it is. Right at the beginning, the title: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
It doesn't say distributed data ledger for any kind of data, it's quite specific.

I beg to differ. If you start from first principles that Bitcoin is money, than that is your standard.
You can call it nostalgia, but the protocol as a set of rules describes BTC as a network that keeps the ledger of Sats moving around. It doesn't describe it as a ledger of any kind of data.

Maybe this is not the greatest analogy, but if someone comes to a chess tournament and wants to play checkers, they should not expect the tournament to turn chess into checkers. We can choose to pretend that we don't know what chess is and it's politics dressed as engineering to try and keep the rules, but that doesn't make sense to me.

At the end of the day, we have ample examples of other chains that did that like Eth, Sol, Ada etc. They are not examples we should follow to say the least.