For example, what Zunger labels point 05.17 "[When the Nazis came to power in Germany], They held angry public rallies which often included violence." This is true. But there's a lie of omission here. These sorts of intense street demonstrations were incredibly common in Weimar Germany (and before that, even), with a lot of street clashing between left-wind and right-wing groups, including paramilitaries. These didn't begin when the Nazis came to power and are not indicative of Nazism per se. Filtering one's view of history through that bias misses many important points that one could apply to the world today.

Nazism was an ideology tied to its particular time and place in history. Redefining it to mean "socialism for members of the nation. And they decide who's in and who's out." is wrongheaded. This definition would seem to apply to any modern nation with social welfare programs and citizenship requirements tied to nationality like Israel or the PRC. Are these countries practicing Nazism or is this definition wrong?

There are some important lessons to learn from that period though. For example: power vacuums get filled quickly. Governments that are derelict in their duty to keep order get challenged by upstart "governments." It's right to ask if one's government is turning a blind eye to "angry public rallies which often included violence" and get worried if that's happening. Sadly I think this has been happening in the USA.

The article doesn't talk about communism because it doesn't have to. It isn't talking about how it happened historically, it is talking about it's ideology, which is independent of its history.

(4) Nazism conceives of the world as a struggle between races.

(5) That's not "race" in the 20c US "black/ white" sense; Jews, Slavs, Britons, and so on are all "races," too.

(6) And Nazis believe that races have certain characteristics, which are passed on through the blood; and that they are bound to some land.

(7) There are a few other articles of Nazi belief: for example, that acting ("the will") is better than thinking (a sign of weaker races).

(8) And that the strength of a race is most strongly exemplified through the untrammeled Will of its leaders.

It doesn't need to talk about communism because it is independent of it.

This is the most baffling whataboutism topic to me (because of how common it is, and how obviously fallacious it is). There are, of course, plenty of cases where you can reasonably have a conversation about fascism or communism without the prerequisite of examining its relationship to the other. You may criticize people for omitting such context in cases where its absence is conspicuous, and you probably should, since I think that's the more realistic goal people who put forward this provocative fallacy are usually trying to get to.