I mean, that judgment is literally a matter of opinion. If they had behaved the same in an office full of autistic people like them, or with people of another culture, the outcome would have been totally different. That said, sometimes opinions matter, like say, the legal rights of fetuses when it comes to abortion, to pick a recent example.
So concluding something is a "difference of opinions" is not the end of the story, sometimes such differences need to be resolved.
Alternative, one can avoid that reasoning and rationalise not discarding consistently failing conversational stratagems because the cause of the failed outcome of a conversation is a person's opinion which lacks the same consistency as mathematics (and therefore more effective conversational stratagems can - at best - only be supported evidentially by inductive reasoning). But that just leads to the wrong outcome more often.
This attitude is exactly what [neurotypical] people generally mean when they say "[some] autistic people can't acknowledge when they're wrong".
Not that autistic people are so convinced of their own rightness that they stare at the compiler saying "my code is flawless, the compiler must be bugged" because there is literally no circumstance in which they will ever update their worldview. But that when it comes to cases where [multiple] people suggest that the question they asked or the tone they asked it in might have been suboptimal for the situation, they are likely to rationalise it as just unverifiable opinion or status games which can't be learned from (but nevertheless, the difference of opinion probably results from misreading by the other party)