Related to [Why are we closing questions for being susceptible to opinion on a site about politics?](https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4286/why-are-we-closing-questions-for-being-susceptible-to-opinion-on-a-site-about-po) but focused on a broader question raised by it.

We have [this question about Donald Trump](https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/50426), which is seeking to apply the term "fascist" to him. The problem is nobody can agree what that means and every given answer actually mentions this

---

[Fizz](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/50447) (quoting [this paper](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938919000840)) - Conclusion: Historically, no. In modern terms, maybe?

> 
> Since the 1960s, scholars have debated whether to embrace expansive or restrictive definitions of fascism, where to place it on the traditional “left/right” political spectrum, and how to explain its relationship to other movements, such as socialism, liberalism, and conservatism. Much of the disagreement reflects differences of methodological focus.
> 
> 
> 

[Lag](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/50450) - Conclusion: Yes

> 
> In Orwell's essay, What is Facism?, he remarked that in normal use the word is "almost entirely meaningless" and "degrade[d] to the level of a swearword".
> 
> 
> But there is a "buried meaning" understood by even those people who "recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction": "By 'Fascism' they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class."
> 
> 
> 

[Peter](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/50451) - Conclusion: No, but he's headed that way

> 
> Fascism is a rather loosely defined term, and is often used to describe regimes that have reached the goal, rather than parties or people that are still in the process of working towards it. Aspiring fascist movements rarely announce their ultimate goals of dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
> 
> 
> 

[Ted Wrigley](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/50456) - Conclusion: Kinda, sorta, maybe?

> 
> Let's be clear up front that the term 'fascist' is problematic in discussions of this sort. Most people use the term merely as a term of derision for anyone who uses their power in an illegitimate or unpleasant way: e.g., a fascist boss, a fascist cop, a fascist bank. While it is possible to give a reasonably factual definition of the term 'fascism' — at least in the same general sense that we can define terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' — it is difficult to use the word in public without an assortment of knee-jerk responses from people who only know the pejorative sense.
> 
> 
> 

[Michael B](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/50475) - (question asker) Conclusion: No

There's no easy quote, but he has to spend 1/3 of his answer telling us what he thinks Fascism is (and he does a good job of that, citing multiple sources) before attempting an answer.

---

Is this an acceptable type of question?