One problem with nuance is that it can be weaponized to pedantry, not that I am accusing you of doing this, but a common tactic I see among conservative talkers is to focus so much on nuance that they intentionally/inadvertently (depending on the person) avoid the topic all-together. It is clear what the person you are replying to is saying, and it is clear that nuance exists. It doesn’t reinforce your point to point out that nuance exists in everything, of course it does.

That said, I warn you to look for occasions where nuance is meant to obscure the core ideas from being discussed.

Their point is that, in a time where a political party is actively banning books, pushing stochastic terrorism, and continues to put forth people who say and do despicable things openly, it is reasonable to reject all people who can’t or won’t stand up to these actions, under the assumption that the rejecter finds these actions despicable.

Or, put a simpler way, using a completely made up example. If I were to require a wheelchair to live, of course I won’t date anyone in the “eliminate wheel chair ramps” party, and it would be silly for you to pretend not to be able to see my perspective in that.