I don't like Nietzsche cause he talked bad about Socialism!!! I prefer author X!"

I've gotta agree. Truth has political bias, attack the message, not the messenger.

I completely agree with Nietzsche in the second picture though.

The description of slave and master morality is NOT prescriptive, he was just describing them. When he says that the greatest societies were inherently hierarchical he was right, yet societal greatness is not defined as good or bad here. For example he also mentions that in such society who is at the bottom is forced to live miserable, meaningless lives, while who is at the top will necessarily lose their mind in a way or another (in this way he also demolishes the common prejudice that sees him as a celebrator of conquerers and warmongerers). Also the whole concept of "elevated man" was to take almost literally in its arbitrariety. He is quite explicit about it, in the sense that by "elevation" he literally meant the collective ideas of great men of the past, instead of some sort of inherent unconcievable superiority of said men.
Now, of course he is not an egalitarian, but your view is still skewed.

I have never heard any such criticism of his works, that said people tend to think very little about what he had to write, so I can see how someone might think that him criticizing socialism and anarchism might be the end of the debate.
That said, it might help knowing that Nietzsche associated only with leftist-anarchist political organizations during his lifetime, and that his critiques of socialism and anarchism are mainly about the proponents that were contemporary to Nietzsche.
Considering how positivistic were 20th century Marxists, this does not surprise me in the slightest, in fact I would say that most people here would have shared the same opinion, especially on the methods that were used.

Late Wittengstein and Kant are not analytic philosophy. Also while Kant is a hassle, Wittgenstein's PI can be read by pretty much everyone, and it is insightful and entertaining (due to the costant thought games) to say the least.

Describing the reality of the world is usually enough to scare people off. A way to dismiss his works is certainly to unfaithfully state that his descriptions are in fact prescriptions.

Jung was wrong about everything and a bad person

i dont like Nietzsche because Stirner is the original one and because Nietzsche had some spooks/ideology the guy was kinda a loser.

yet "the analytics" worshiped it just as hard as they did Tractatus, after he said "Academia is all empty word games" they were like

You have a very skewed understanding of history of philosophy. PI was absolutely ostracized from Anglo academia, and the European positivists, who were the main proponents of the Tractatus, all rejected it.

while i can't argue with those gets, my recollection is it was reappraised maybe a generation or so after the initial reception as a key text of logical behaviorism, along with Ryle, and of the "conceptual analysis" tendency focusing on natural language (usually meaning English) in usage as opposed to the more mathematical logic oriented side.