It's a rhetorical tool that quickly highlights the absurdity of pointing out actual harm experienced makes the subject un-objective.
Would you prefer an example of 50 companies being hacked, them advocating for better cybersecurity measures everywhere, and someone pointing out they're now un-objective and should be dismissed? That this doesn't indicate anything about how cybersecurity measures are needed?
I also find it hilarious that you're accusing me of playing "bingo" while half your argument is:
"logical fallacy", "strawman", "appeal to emotion", and "poisoning the well" in quick succession.
Although I'm hoping it's just good sarcasm if it's impossible to distinguish.