That is, using labels that previously widely used defined patterns resulting in real human-killing -- to, instead, describe a pattern that a person finds unfitting to his/her policy views.
In other words, misplaced naming calling, in a way, stealing the valor from the real victims of the true dystopian past events.
"... It is important to keep dystopia in its place, and in perspective.
There are and have been real dystopias in the world, and imaginary ones help illustrate how utopian visions can endanger decent regimes and communities.
Not every call for a border wall or “Medicare for all” is dystopian; one (or the other) may be a stupid idea, but it is not summoning 1984. ..."
As for the distinction itself, I was prompted to look it up on Merriam-Webster:
dys· to· pia | \ (ˌ)dis-ˈtō-pē-ə \
Definition of dystopia
1 : an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives
2 : ANTI-UTOPIA sense 2
So... the primary definition actually undercuts his thesis, while the second definition lines up. I mean it's an interesting subject of contemplation - dystopia's relationship with utopia - but he took an argumentative approach rather than a contemplative one, which I think squandered the topic a little.