you're right and I didn't ever claimed that, read further to find
> despicable ideas
we can all agree that most of their ideas are from outrageous to sheer folly (racial superiority, eugenics, blood and soil, you name it).
However, here's the thing: calling Nazis Nazis is fine and punching Nazis is, let's say, in a moral grey area subject to personal interpretation, being at least outside of law. but my own gripe is not with the whole "punching a Nazi" thing, it's whom decide someone classify as a Nazi. Some groups are self evident, being self proclaimed; fine, fair targets. Some group share most of the ideas publicly, so no escaping there from the label. Some person share some of the ideas, maybe not even the most outrageous, say, supports closing borders or just support legal immigration. Some person are guilt by association.
Where do you draw the line? Person are quite rational and I expect somewhere between the spectrum there's a 'too much of a Nazi' at which you get into this sort of 'punchable' level of naziness, or something. But where would an angry mob draw the line? An antifa death squad fueled by all these 'they're subhumans' 'punch a nazi' slogans? You're basically merging extra-judiciary executive power with rage fueled irrationality, and that's bad, and that's growing.
remember, there's a constant stream on most media that 'everyone supporting X is a Nazi', where X changes quite fast and X can often be 'being a white male' and calls for actions against these groups. diluting the term to include the privileged group of the day coupled with fueling violence is very dangerous.
I'd pretty much prefer to see Nazis removed from the public view via the use of the existing hate speech laws, the judiciary system and fines/sentences, so there's that.