Debanking is part of the culture war now, which means that someone's reaction to it shows that they're either on the right or on the left, with no positions in between allowed, and that therefore they also support all the other culture war positions of their chosen side. The culture war is designed to bundle positions together like this, and to force issues into the bundle, in order to foster an us-versus-them feeling about every issue. It's possible to recognize this is happening, attempt to analyze the issue and the merits of each side of the argument, and come to a conclusion that one side or the other has the better argument. It's difficult though to convince others that your position is not because of culture war dynamics because the design of the culture war is to minimize independent analysis.

I think that debanking is absolutely a right wing false victimhood propaganda narrative, but I'm still interested in why they think it's an issue, partly in order to engage in the argument and defeat it based on facts, and partly to continue to learn the foundations for their side of the culture war in general

People whose business is effectively a grift should not be offered banking services, both as a moral issue and as a good business decision.

Right-wingers are far more likely to be grifters.

So right-wingers are more likely to be debanked but correlation is not...yadda yadda.

The tech industry was a lot cooler back when it was mostly graybeard hippies and not a bunch of incel adjacent techbros who never grew out of their Ayn Rand idolization phase.