Perhaps due to the fact that the members of the Chipmixer's campaign (and their sycophants) are most aggressive in their behavior on the forum.
If by "aggressive" you mean
outspoken, I'd have to say only a few of the Chipmixer campaign members have that trait--i.e., there are just a few voices that are very loud, but if you look at the entire spreadsheet you'll see that most participants aren't the ones engaging in drama or voicing their strong opinions about things. So you've overgeneralized everyone in the campaign.
The best evidence
I am aware of from Chainalysis shows that only 8% of funds being sent to mixers are from illicit sources. Please present your evidence that refutes this and shows instead "massive income" from illicit sources.
Huh, that's interesting. I didn't even know you could check that out. I also don't see what all the hooplah is about Chipmixer being used for illicit activity. Cryptocurrency is all about privacy, right? Are privacy coins inherently evil? Is cash inherently evil? I'd say no to the last two questions, and I don't see a service that enhances financial privacy to be a bad thing. Sure it could be used by bad folks for bad reasons, but so can a lot of other things--including the internet itself.
Why Chipmixer is being singled out here is beyond me.