So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[Pyrrho]

You have it exactly backwards. The vehemence, hostility, and aggression are in those who are calling others "nazis." That is not something that decent people apply haphazardly to others. It is childish name-calling, rather than seriously addressing the issues. It is a substitute for reasoning, and an attempt to poison the well.

Really, it should be obvious that calling people "feminazis" is probably not a good idea, given the origin of its popular use. If you wish to associate yourself with Rush Limbaugh, you may continue to do so. But if you do, don't expect people of sense to take you seriously.

I'm not commenting on the "feminazis," or the people who call them that. I'm commenting on the linguistic use of the term "nazi." Clearly, it is a meaningful linguistic term, with an intent of drawing analogy.

Yes, "nazi" is a meaningful linguistic term, as is the term "feminazi." "Feminazi" has been used by Rush Limbaugh, who "popularized" the term, for women who wanted equality with men, and had the temerity to not quietly accept second-class status. You know, like those uppity blacks who did not quietly accept their place in "separate but equal" bits of America. The term "feminazi" is used against those who do not quietly accept being mistreated. It is, in fact, a misuse of the term "nazi," as it has no relevance at all to what is being described. It would be like calling black civil rights activists (like Martin Luther King, Jr.), who did not quietly accept "separate but equal" accommodations, as "blacknazis" or "nigganazis." Neither of these groups have any connection whatsoever to nazis. Limbaugh has much more in common with Nazis than feminists do. But it is, as you say, used to try to draw an analogy. Since the analogy is not appropriate, it is really an example of the fallacy known as poisoning the well. Its purpose is to prejudice the audience into disregarding whatever the accused has to say, and to ridicule the accused, all without bothering with dealing with any actual facts relevant to what the accused has stated, nor with discussing the real objectives of the accused. It is an effective device with many people; otherwise, the fallacy would not be so common, and would not have a name.