Obviously, no one here is saying that. Ailchu is once again attempting to put words in people's mouths. It's one of his specialties, and yes, it should be pointed out.
All West Eurasians share ancestry, but Europeans, even Southern Europeans, have their own admixtures, as do people in the Near East. It's not a question of, as you say, liking or not liking. It's a question of facts.
Should Turks be prevented from trying to piece together their own origin history, for example? They've discovered that in some areas up to 25% of their ancestry is actual "TURK", as from Central Asia. Should science ignore the fact that there is more Anatolian Neolithic in Italy than in Turkey?
To quote someone I admire: "Facts are facts; they don't care about your feelings."
If he wants to lecture someone who hates having Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and even tries to deny the Middle Eastern origin of CHG by pushing its entrance north of the Caucasus back a few thousand years, as if that makes a difference, why doesn't he go on eurogenes' blog and lecture him? I'll tell you why: he'd be permanently banned.
To take a slightly different tack and answer someone with whom I vehemently disagree about Indo-European society...
From Razib Khan:
https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1399119488704933889
"The Yamnaya brought about a dark age."
"the archaeologists on the podcasts all mention how little material remains the corded ware etc. produced. their society was just not that complex compared to the funnel beaker societies. it was collapse"
"getting into reading about the indo-europeanization of europe 5,000 years ago and conversations with archaeologists, i'm getting the sense yamnaya rule ushered in a dark age. 'old europe' of the megalith builders was the kingdom of arnor. the post-yamnaya societies were rohan"
I've been saying this for the past TEN YEARS, because I've always read the archaeology. He could have read it here.
Of course, maybe at the time he wouldn't have been ready...none so blind as those who will not see.