There is no such thing as a perfect OS where there is no attack surface or dependencies.

OP, you're absolutely right about systemd, but similar critiques can be given to nearly any underlying OS service. (Also, I'm sure this is in response to other posts praising systemd)

I'm just starting to feel like it's a little silly to even have a conversation one way or another about these things instead of just accepting that people could and should use the tools that fit their use case scenario the best.

For most people, the stuff they gain from things (for example, systemd) outweighs the downsides.

We don't make such choices in a vacuum. It's important to know limitations, attack surfaces, and dependencies, but it's important mostly for being able to choose the right GNU tools for yourself.

Nobody can tell you what the best OS/Kernel/GNU tool is to use, because that's always deeply dependent on your specific needs for the task at hand. While PCs are "general purpose computing," they all can have wildly different hardware and software hiccups, and only you can use your own knowledge to choose the best tools for your use-case.