Thats ofc nonsense, banning the Segwit2x nodes was pointless, if the for had happened the 1x nodes wouldn't have follow those anyway as the bigger blocks would've been rejected.
And the segwit stuff could've been done long before already on testnet and been coded in to be active when segwit activated.
It was also core who said segwit is ready since years and most of the community is ready for segwit and that segwit would solve scaling issues instant.
It was also BIP91 what was accepted by 100% what activated segwit and what included also 2MB Blocks later, without BIP91 their wouldn't be segwit at all.
UASF would have failed, without UASF there wouldn't be Bitcoin Cash and also no Bitcoin Gold,diamond,and 1000 other forks what will follow.
If core had follow the HK agreement there wouldn't be any of those forks either and Segwit had been active since much longer time.

I didn't wait for segwit i never liked the segwit idea but ofc when it was activated I would support it to offer users lower fees but that doesn't work because it isn't ready in fact.
And now the same people blame businesses for not adopting it.
It was also claimed as easier to do than a HF but in fact it isn't, updating the node software would've been easier than changing a lot of transactional code.
Bech32 was merged in pretty quick without need but a option to set the change address not, that option is missing since p2sh addresses and not just since segwit.
Bech32 is nothing important at all and its not even compatible with old nodes and also confusing for users.
If users request a withdrawal on sites to Bech32 addresses they would fail if the service didn't update.