You're probably using "globalization" as "trade, communication, and, to a lesser extent, travel, on a global scale".
They're using "globalization" as "the process seeking to erode sovereign countries, national identities, and distinct cultures, until the only remaining force and identity are corporate international conglomerates, free to do as they please since all competing systems of belonging and organization have been eliminated."
In their view, globalization is not complete until all "discrimination" by a formerly sovereign nation is made toothless. I put "discrimination" in quotes, because while it probably makes you think of whites-only water fountains, I am referring to things such as Article 27 of Mexico's constitution forbidding the sale or privatization of indigenous land, or Canada's ban on foreign house buyers [1]. I.e. discriminating against non-Canadians, or non-indigenous-Mexicans. Laws that see people as not just "global citizens", but local ones.
That NAFTA did in fact involve the cancellation of Article 27 [2], and that "free trade" agreements in general involve a host of demands that go far beyond lowering tariffs, implies the view of "globalization" as merely trade is incomplete, and that seeing it as a force opposing sovereign nations is more accurate.
[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/who-s-exempt-from-canada-s-f...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre...
The reaction is basically “things are not ideal. Therefore the problem must be globalization. Or late stage capitalism. Or wokeness”. Depending on what they’ve watched on TV or read on their social media of choice. Never mind that they can’t even define what some of those things mean.