Every time I see this I think of how funny it is that Nazi apologist being in bold was not editorializing on part of the admin that added it, the poster put that in bold themselves.
genuinely the hardest part of arguing with is explaining the difference between using an ad-hominem argument and just being extensively insulting. Not because it's particularly hard to define an ad hominem argument and create examples, just because the are so deep set.
It's also a deliberate obfuscation because so much discourse on isn't about the intellectually honest search for the truth, it's about getting community support by reinforcing the majority consensus, within which saying "Hey you insulted me no fair" makes you sound peevish and weak while saying "that's an ad hominem therefore you are wrong" adds to the collective veneer of sophistication and helps head off any actual engagement with the content.
That site tag seems exactly like the type of thing a troll, shit, shithead, baby brain, nazi apologist, colonial comprador, freak, nerd, rabid imperialist westerner, condescending dickbag, disingenuous idiot, and unimaginative impotent weasel would write if I’m being honest
they clearly are disingenuous though. Someone complaining about being called a nazi who refuses to talk about why they were being called a nazi is pretty sus