This. They are talking about "dystopia" and "utopia" which more or less mean "good"/"bad" society, it would be astonishing if any amoral (eg substantive) arguments could come out. Their conclusion (ie please don't be idealistic, it'll always lead to something bad) can be summarized as defending order, eg an institution that is legitimate per se. This kind of moral authoritarian argument is akin to the "do exclude violence", "don't promote radical ideas" (in the sense of largely differing from the status quo) and we long know that this rhetoric is used to elude the question of the frame of political confrontations, which is mostly what political negotiation should be about. Once the frame is set, the orientation is already fixed. I'm not about defending what we commonly refer to as revolutions (or more precisely insurrections), i'm just saying i don't believe institutions have any legitimacy per se and as such it is authoritarian conservatism to exclude critical thinking using moral arguments. The first and foremost rule of a democratic organization should be the "political (moral) license": being able to break the laws maintaining current order if you are about questioning it.