A self-identified Nazi killing for Nazi reasons would be linked to Nazis. Also note, when the media linked the killer to Nazis, the Nazis didn't denounce the killing. Octogenarians condemned the murderer in your strawman.
I'm curious if you would try to use the same "logic" when consisting my hypothetical scenario. That's not a strawman, that's just trying to figure out how exactly your mind
If the octogenarian was found with anti-Nazi materials and statements to the effect of pre-meditating the murder, then yes, I'd denounce the murderer. If the President defended a murderer, I'd denounce the evil murderer-supporter.
If someone is both anti-murder and anti-Nazi, you can't comprehend what would happen if the two conflicted?
Turns out it "works" by making shit up and then just dodging uncomfortable questions.
The question wasn't "uncomfortable" just stupid. And you are the only one making up things. What do you think "hypothetical' means? Since you obviously don't know, it's a big word for "made up". Turns out, you should know the definitions of words you use. You literally make shit up, then your very next post complain that I make up shit. Pot, meet mirror.
the Nazis were socialists)
The Nazis were right-wing fascists. Never anything else. They named themselves Socialist for marketing reasons, not functional or factual ones. Like DPRK is not more democratic than the US (who doesn't even have democratic or republic in the name). Often the evil people will name themselves the opposite of what they are, trying to play both sides.
So what happens is, often the right will criticise the left by pointing to the earliest and most regressive stages in the left
The real trick the Right likes to use is to label someone with an obvious lie long after the changes. The Republicans are for minorties because Lincoln was Republican and the Southern Democrats in the '50s rejected integration. When today, the situation is obviously not related to the history (even if some of the names haven't even changed).
The other "favorite" is to call every dictatorship socialist. DRPK, Cuba, USSR (after Lenin died). Those 3 are dictatorships, but none of those 3 are socialist, even if they claimed to be, when they are not.
Though today, they give up all logic. anti-fascists are fascists by the definitions used by the American Right. How is that even possible? When North and anti-North (South) are the same direction, the problem isn't with South, but with the compass you are measuring them against.
Like that old "study" that said 80 km/h was the ideal speed for max throughput (it's not).
80km is the speed at which maximum throughput is *observed*. That you don't like facts doesn't make them wrong.
Below 80km, people lose focus and the number of phone-checkers and lane hoppers cause traffic to flow worse. Above 80km, people leave closer to the "recommended" 2 second distance, which is too high for optimal throughput.
Now, if the car behind me is further back, according to the "study", I should slow down to increase my distance in front and reduce my distance behind. But then of course the car behind me is going to slow again to get back to its old distance, so I keep slowing until I have as much distance in front of me as the car behind me. Now the car in front of me is going to slow down to as well, because he wants as much distance in front of him as behind him. I don't exactly see throughput improving here...
If everyone drove like you, then minimum safe distance is best. Are you asserting you are no better than the average driver? If you aren't average, then extrapolating your personal opinion to everyone would be stupid. So, you are either a bad driver or stupid. Or both. I vote for both.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A cucumber is not a vegetable but a fruit.