This is what’s so disingenuous about the argument. We’re not talking about gray areas. There are shades of gray, however, in addition to shades of gray, there’s a very clear subset where there’s some stuff that falls into an indisputably bad category. Some people like to pretend this isn’t true and act not making the effort to distinguish clear cut examples is an exercise in high minded intellectual nuance.

I used to find it weird that centrists would always say “people you don’t like” when talking about the enemies of Socialism, because we’ve well defined who our intended target of so-called “authoritarian” measures are. But then it occurred to me that this has always been the centre’s rhetoric on the matter. Ever since the Bolshevik won the revolution and started to implement revolutionary policy to fight reactionary belief systems, the centre has implied the policies were random, without a clear target.

The reality of their tactic is actually quite simple, however. The centre has to put our targets into the abstract, or the people who listen to them will realize our targets align with their class interests. Our targets aren’t randomly selected from a list of people we’ve just decided not to like, it’s oppressors and the supporters of the oppressors, the capitalist class and the supporters of the capitalist class, etc. If the people who listen to the rhetoric of centrists learned who we really want to go after - racists, sexists, people who abuse their power to implement policies of hate, etc - they’d radicalize out of the centre.

also, mind you, the person being argued with was banned from Lemmygrad for arguing in favour of the Nazis a while ago. So I highly doubt anything we could say to them will change their mind on this subject.