If that where the case, we would see banning of gender studies and a few more ideas pushed by the left, which is clearly not what’s happening.
Many, in fact, were not, even if some participation in the practice at the time. Look at the pushing of anti-Western intellectualism and rejection of the basic tools of logical reasoning, which trace their roots far back to the Ancient Greeks, for being the "Master's Tools" to ensure supremacy.
At the end of every disagreement is violence as the final method of conflict resolution. That these ideas are pushed, is just another log on the fire. Part of classical logic and rhetoric was teaching the ability to utilize them to defuse and avoid violent resolution of disagreement through reference to an objective or common reality.
You may not think the above poster has a point, but they most certainly do.
But their leap to "if X is banned and Y is similar to X and Y isn't banned then X can't be banned" is still wrong because it is not the similarities between X and Y that is causing X to be banned.
It is the fact that X is being used to inspire violent opposition to the government that is the source of the banning.
Or to make it much less abstract:
A bunch of people broke into one of the most important buildings in the US government, killed a police officer and wounded others who were trying to stop them, stole stuff including computers belong to high ranking government officials, broke stuff, humiliated the government, and had every appearance of being willing to cause physical harm to political leaders because of X.
X was supported by social media.
Social media hosts reasonably concluded that the government may cause them to suffer negative consequences if they did not do something to prevent this from happening again.
Because of Y, some people have gotten into fights on the internet and a few individuals have found their employment and social options constrained. The government is not nearly as interested in this.