So what are you saying? That objectivity doesn't exist? That there is no way to run a society that objectively does a better job at making people as a whole feel comfortable? That it's ideal for people with opposing ideologies to exist (I used to think that when I was a libertarian but over time realized that having an ideology coexist with another ideology that wants the first ideology gone simply doesn't work well at all, so we need to find the ideology that works better and progress from the other one).

I would argue that there is no objective right or wrong, but also that people in general have certain shared interests and usually some sort of a common moral ground. Like basically nobody wants to be in a concentration camp. People don't like being endangered by others, so basic laws are agreed upon to minimize this, like don't murder or rape people. And people want to be free to do things they want to do, so if they don't cause significant problems to another person they should be allowed. There might not be an objective "right" but there is an objective "this is what this person wants" for every person which means that there is a way to balance these interests to come up with a set of principles that objectively makes a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible. So since I naturally want to be comfortable and I know other people naturally want to be comfortable and societies tend to be more efficient and comfortable when people cooperate, working toward these principles is how we successfully do that, and this is what I will use as my basis for right and wrong.

However, when one person's freedom infringes on the freedoms of another person, this is where major problems arise and compromises need to be made. With the goal being to have a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible, this means that there is an objectively best compromise that meets this goal, and what people need to do is figure out what that "objectively best" compromise is, which happens by understanding the context of every party involved in this conflict. So whether an action is "right" in terms of making a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible is dependent entirely on the context, not the action itself. Which means that while actions such as killing another person are normally "wrong" as it infringes on the freedom of another person, if killing that person helps society reach the goal of being as comfortable for as many people as possible (i.e. the person is actively oppressing people based on characteristics they cannot change and killing them would help stop that), then killing that person is "right" in terms of that moral context.

This is the basic idea that separates "fascism" from "antifascism" (and other similar ideas such as "racism" vs "antiracism"), in that they may use similar tactics but when you look at what those actions are objectively doing to people, one is promoting discrimination based on characteristics people cannot change leading to a more unequal society that deviates from this ideal, and the other is countering that, leading to a less overall unequal society and progressing toward that ideal.

The challenge is that this objectivity in terms of what actions are "right" and "wrong" is still being discovered and debated on, and putting those disagreements in light so they can be resolved is important for making social progress. But in the end, whether a person or a society is "fascist" is an objective measure and in my view there is nothing wrong with combating this through any means possible.