I don't want to be too mean here, but this is a sort of gratuitous stupidity. The ADL notes that various organisations have their codes, symbols and esoteric signifiers, but this is really not the same thing as those things always representing hate groups. For instance, are you arguing that the ADL should
not note that these are codes used by far right groups, that this information should remain censored because progressives will start mass reporting schools for teaching the 12 times table?
One might consider the history of such symbols, like the Christian fish. It is claimed in the early church it was chosen to be innocuous to most people, but believers would pick up the relevance. On the same logic you are employing here, you may as well argue the fish isn't a symbol of Christianity, despite its prevalence in church advertising and those stickers on the boots of Christians' cars, because the symbol of a fish doesn't always represent Christianity. How good an argument do you think that is?
The reality is that the vast majority of people are capable of discerning what symbols might mean
when placed in context. Even an early Christian that saw a fish on a sign above a shop would almost certainly think "fishmonger". And sure, some people are sometimes unsure, and some are wrong. So the usual ever-so-tedious trick at this juncture is introduce the reductio ad absurdam of "this anecdote illustrates someone overreacting or making a mistake". We live in a world where flat earthers, Scientologists and denying the moon landing are a thing: that's the level of at least some of humanity. Thus the fundamental problem with this fallacy is that it makes a completely unreasonable demand for there to be perfection, that's why it's a reductio ad absurdam. Obviously there is not perfection, but just because there isn't doesn't mean ideological adherents never use the symbols ascribed to them and that we can't point that out that they do.
Or like if a restaurant has three K's somewhere in it's name. Kathy's Kountry Kitchen is definitely all about the neo-Nazis, after all (and just to be clear, I didn't make this one up lil devil once claimed on these forums that a restaurant having three Ks in the name was a low key way of saying they support the KKK).
Reductio ad absudam anecdotes like that.
...and that's why it's acceptable to call them "colored people." No? Only in the name of the NAACP? They weren't trying to use a slur in their name, they were using the at the time current euphemism, which it self wasn't the first euphemism on the treadmill.
This sounds like trying to reboot the argument that white people should be allowed to call black people n*****s because they occasionally call themselves that, which is so 2005.