From a technical viewpoint, Bitcoin's code was changed with the Taproot patch that moved Bitcoin away from being purely a peer-to-peer electronic payment system as Satoshi envisioned, to include the "latest thing". One of the developers referred to this as "security regression." This is not what Bitcoin was designed to be.
You're getting tricked by misinformation-- what I suspect is some intentional consensus cracking (especially since we know most if not all of the BRC-20 stuff is being funded by Ayre & related entities) though it might just be confusion.
This stuff doesn't have anything to do with taproot-- to prove this to yourself go start up node software from 2019 before the taproot bip was even proposed and observe that accepts this stuff just fine.
You could potentially attribute the attack to segwit in the sense that it increased the block size which made more room for junk but to the extent that your complaint is that fees have been driven up, the same attack would have worked prior to segwit. It's also easy to see that people were embedding irrelevant data in Bitcoin long before segwit (fine example being the Bitcoin Whitepaper).
If you want to complain instead that the attack is bloating the blockchain on disk of archival nodes or that its increasing the data that must be transferred during IBD-- then it's fine to criticize segwit but otoh where the hell were you when there was extremely widespread demand for additional capacity? -- it's not like bloating up the chain is a surprising result: it's the reasonable and expected downside of increasing the capacity.
It's important when contemplating an attack to realize that the attackers have every reason to mislead about the nature of the attack and the enabling factors.
Another piece of measing narrative craft--
one I've seen rodarmor fall for, in fact describing his action as a kick in the teeth to bitcoin developers-- is the false claim that these ordinals translations are in any way charged lower fees by the network. This isn't true. The network doesn't set fees at all, they're established by the users competitively bidding for access to capacity. Miners accept transactions in order of most fees per unit capacity down until the block is full. Every transaction competes equally(*) and needs to pay based on the capacity it uses.
The deceptive discount claim dupes people for two reasons: The first is because Bitcoin's block limit isn't measured in bytes, it's measured in weight. But because the limit works on weight so do fee calculations. If the limits was a limit on bytes (or the complaint was how much space archived nodes are using) but the fees miners demanded were irrationally calculated based on something else then it would be correct to say there was a discount, but there isn't. The second is because segwit did in fact lower fees-- but it did so purely because it increased capacity resulting in a lower equilibrium fee rate. (Again, that's what people demanded. Good job, you got what you wanted...)
If someone wants to say "because segwit, witness data like signature or witness-embeded garbage uses less capacity" -- then THAT would be true. Witness data using less capacity remains well justified: it should because it's prunable and doesn't have to be stored long term just to run a node at all. Making this data use *more* capacity wouldn't diminish its effect on driving up transaction fees, it would *increase it*, because it would be using more capacity which could otherwise be used for other transactions.
To the extent that some misguided idiots want to store data in the blockchain the fact that it uses less capacity than it would without segwit only helps mitigate the harm.
To the extent that high fees are from an attack intending to drive up fees it's irrelevant in any case: no matter how it works the attacker has to pay in the fees of the next best transaction they displace in each block they displace it.
(*) ignoring things like CPFP which make some transactions more profitable then their fees imply due to having high-fee children.
