I think you're getting the downvotes (and I think I saw a few others mention this) because your argument is rooted in the word keeping the exact definition it was historically created in.

People who 'simp' for China are not 'Mao apologists' but that'd be a fine enough term for me to understand exactly who, in the modern day, is being insulted.

In similar fashion, no, existing fascists in the republican party are not literally National Socialist German Workers' Party members, but they DO have a lot of similarities to the values and actions we have distilled down over the last 80 years that we attribute to 'Nazis'.

So, no, they're not Nazis, but to call them such isn't to 'change history...' as you put it, and is instead a means of identifying extreme and harmful beliefs with an existing, demonized (for good reason) label to accent the severity of their beliefs as they compare to modern sensibilities related to freedom.

They downvoted you because you became a Dictionary Nazi, the Grammar Nazi's even less-liked younger brother