The problem is due to the erosion of the meaning of words and the aggressive labeling of every single group in the world (and I consider this something that both sides engage in) that the definition itself depends upon words that no longer carry meaning.

Words like “right-wing” have no meaning because the “right” is nothing like the “right” historically and they stand for nothing. You could slice the population into segments separated by the decade of birth, and every group would have a completely different definition of “democrat” and “republican,” “left-wing” and “right-wing.” Even worse, someone who is classically liberal can be labeled “right-wing” and “fascist” for being pro-life, even though they are pro-legalization of drugs, pro-lgbtq rights, and pro-social assistance.

Definition two is modern, and an attempt to associate people with someone like Stalin, which is bad faith and I will always reject it.

I see this as no different or any less bad than people referring to modern democrats as “socialists” or even “communists.” It’s wrong both technically and morally to attempt to associate those with whom you disagree with mass murderers, unless they are going around killing 10’s of thousands of people unprovoked.

It is far too easy to say you stand against a vague, anamorphic cloud of an idea than to name the person and the specific policy you are against. Virtue signaling without taking any risk of being required to back it up.

“I have a problem with X leader because of Y policy which is bad because Z” opens up the floor to discussion, debate, and either being proven true or false. “Stand against fascism” does not.

Nuance by its very definition requires specificity, and jargon culture is very much an influential part of the shit show politics has become.