From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in.
It's basically the other way around: Segwit made the transactions cheap, but Taproot enabled bigger standard transactions than before.
There seems to be however still a misunderstanding, because this applies to big inscriptions and not to BRC-20 inscriptions which are very small. BRC-20 could have been implemented in a slightly different way without problems without Taproot (storing the JSON file in an OP_RETURN output). That's basically what the Doginals folks on Dogecoin did.
Thus:
So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network,
... this wouldn't make sense, because then BRC-20 would simply use another token technology. There are even methods which do not even require OP_RETURN.