My point is that he weakens his (valid) argument by quoting a nazi, and I'm suggesting he edit.
You're actually accusing me of making an ad hominem attack, when in fact I'm simply trying to point out that he's opening himself up to such attacks by using the quote he's using. Clearly you must agree that he's inviting such attacks, as you seem to be jumping to his defense even before such an attack has taken place.
And you seem to be saying that it is the job of a person making an argument to ensure that ad hominem attacks against him aren't made, though an ad-hominem attack is a thought process failure on the part of the attacker, not the one being attacked.
It's always the job of the writer to make himself understood. If the writer chooses to use words that alienate his readers, such that they refuse to listen to any of his ideas, it's his failure, not theirs. This world is not populated with vulcans ("thought process failure"?) and logic alone will not carry the day.
That said, you have every right to write what you want to.
If the writer chooses to use words that alienate his readers
You (seemingly) are an example of everything you argue against, tho. Shoot the messenger is not a strong or attractive argument. Neither is failing to (properly) understand a literary reference, have a sense of irony, history, humor, etc...
Lighten up and argue your point, properly. With trasnparency, not FUD and oblique credibility attacks. This is also a good time to think about whether you are a cultural fit with HN.[1]
__________
[1] <sarcasm tag> Be Glad I'm not your boss. Oh, wait, that would be an asshole comment. OK folks. Carry on. NOthing to see here.
And your form of argument is ad-hominem. Not exactly the moral high ground.