Instead of non-socialists poorly defining socialism, how about we get some self-identified socialists poorly defining divergent fields of socialist thought?

Yes. Trots are just more roundabout social-democrats. trots, unlike tankies, support the whole soviet period, call for not a class revolution but a political change of seats, don't care or think that they are connected to the class in any significant way which means they focus on "capturing" positions in trade unions and social-democratic parties, they perform entryism which basically amounts to lying to people, they advance demands that are intended to hoodwink people into being socialists, they call for things like a "workers' state", they end up supporting such things they think progressive as nationalised property regardless of where it is or what context, thinking that it is socialist and so on, and so on.

Trots do not support the entire Soviet period at all. Consider the International Socialist Organisation, who are broadly Trotskyist, and do not consider the USSR to have been socialist at all. Consider Leon Trotsky, who wrote a book called The Revolution Betrayed to discuss the USSR under Stalin, and called for a new revolution to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy, comparing the Stalinist period 'The Soviet Thermidor' to compare it to the period of the French Revolution when conservative forces took control of the revolution, and compares Stalinism to Bonapartism.

Trotskyists also do not necessarily try to capture positions in trade unions and social-democratic parties. Once again, consider the ISO, who specifically focus their agitation towards students and university campuses.

The one thing I would say is universal to Trots is that they support the concept of 'permanent revolution' something which this poster fails to even mention.

I'm sure there's more in there, but I think that is enough to establish that this person has zero idea about what they are talking about.