Wasn't around at the time but I feel the argument against bigger blocks wasn't so much technical but bc big blockers were pushing too hard without large consensus, also segwit was an option on the table that could be enough before taking riskier options.
Discussion
I think if inscriptions continue for another, what, year? we will start to see both well-meaning and malicious actors begin to carry narratives that advocate for *drastic* measures need to be taken with the cose. I think that is the greatest risk. We lucked out with SegWit being a soft fork, thanks to Luke, and we may not be so lucky this time around. A hard fork breaks the world's understanding of what defines bitcoin. It creates a wider attack surface, socially and technically.
* drastic measures be taken with the code
The pressure to do something is very likely if this continues for a long time frame. I'm not against HFs, if there is wide consensus, I think bitcoin never having HFs in the future is a bit romantic and can lead to less optimal solutions but I also don't believe an blocksize increase will happen through HF in this cycle, even with high fees for a long time, but things will get hot for sure in the community.
We will need at least one hardfork to address Unix time rollover. HF's would be a political disaster if they aren't extremely small, targeted, critical fixes to address universally-acknowledged existential threats. They should not include any features that are open-ended dev toys and meant to enhance building upon bitcoin.