Preventing counter arguments is NOT fine, that's the issue with generic claims. You can read in the article itself the extreme annoyance the activist experienced when there was a pushback.

Think of it this way, would it be fine in this situation if an additional speaker was brought in, one projecting the exact opposite of her claims? Absolutely no way that would happen, which means it's not a discussion. It's an accusation with a fixed outcome.

"but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo."

I know this language is normalized but saying that people benefit from some status quo is a wild claim. You need extraordinary evidence. And even then it means nothing to the individual. People will keep throwing around demeaning stuff to generalize entire demographics like it's nothing, but it will never ever work.

This is why progressive politics is so broken. It builds enemies instead of allies. It burns bridges instead of making new ones.