I think it’s well established at this point that anarchists and ‘auth leftists’ have a different definition of authoritarian (and ‘state’ for that matter)

It seems similar to that old debate about ‘reverse racism’ vs racial prejudice- the sociological definition of racism includes oppression, but the dictionary definition didn’t/doesn’t, so people were largely arguing over semantics

Anarchism obviously is a very large umbrella, and part of the whole having everything decentralized and not have a central authority dictating everything means anarchists tend to expect people to have different ideas of what anarchy means, and for those to more or less co exist. Same way as there wouldn’t be a universal authority, there wouldn’t be a universal moral code. So while all would be definitionally anti-authority, that doesn’t necessarily mean anti-violence. Indeed, I think we can all agree on some violence that is justifiable, for example in self defense.

Part of the beauty of free association is that it acts as a sort of decentralized justice system. If there’s a person doing truly awful things, such as a Nazi, you may face no real consequences for your actions. But another action, even if less harmful in magnitude but for less justifiable reasons, could see stronger repurcussions by virtue of people no longer associating with that person.

(And of course, this kind of violence would largely only be considered justified in situations where both transformative and restorative justice have failed to resolve the issue)