The dogmatism I'm perceiving here is at least in part that you're applying an extremely black and white approach to this. There are many possibilities between semver and "the opposite of semver", and there are options that exist along other axes from semver as well. The only way what you're saying here makes much sense to me is if you define "opposite of X" to be "anything that is not X", which is.. weird.

And again, I did not propose "the opposite of semver" or anything else. I said "some changes are poorly described by semver". It's a big leap from that to "I know exactly what you have in mind and it is every change is a major change." Which I... did not say anywhere?

Though, I do think that, as I mentioned elsewhere, this is approximately the net practical effect of using semver for things that have a principled opposition to breaking of backwards compatibility. If you never go to '2.0.0' then the '1.' part of '1.234234.0' is meaningless. Your version is just 234234.0 and you're playing the same game of pretend that '0.x' does in semver only with a bigger number. Again though, this is not me proposing that, it is me observing that the thing you're arguing against is possibly what's really happening anyways.