Except that no one claimed they were “not better” in any objective sense, because there is no objective “better.” That is the problem with your position and @marlowe1’s claimed contradiction. Like @Marlow1, you mistake the observation that your “standards” are subjective with the claim that they are objectively wrong. They aren’t, but the defense (which you offered) claiming a non-subjective higher ground fails. It becomes a matter to discuss, debate, and consider, which is, IMO, what @MWolf was offering. And he makes a good argument.
In other words, IMO @MWolf wasn’t necessarily disputing whatever it is that you and others find compelling about Pound. It seems to me he was offering a well-reasoned alternative perspective suggesting why some figures are so abhorrent to our common sensibilities that they ought not be celebrated. I have to say, from the perspective of someone who knew very little about Pound the man, his arguments were far more compelling than those offered in Pound’s defense. The idea that we should overlook his despicable actions because he was supportive of other writers, or because a few Jewish intellectuals were apparently friendly with him? Not only absurd, but a strong argument for not ignoring the context when addressing the works.
As for the rest, you oversimplify the issue. @MWolf acknowledges that there aren’t hard and fast rules for this sort of decision.