Subjectivist fallacy or just mere opinion?

The term “demagogue” requires a standard that is inherently subjective. At what point does someone become a demagogue? When they appeal to people’s irrationality? Their “prejudices”, their “lowest common elements? All are terms which have their own subjective definitions. It’s like calling someone an “a**-hole.” By what standard? But what rational process do you propose to apply the standard. One person’s a**-hole is another person’s “honey bun”. Interesting to suggest appeal to authority in this case... since Hawking is a genius when it come to Astro-physics, that give him zero authority to speak on matters of political relevance. But then, all of Hollywood falls into the same category. “False Appeal to Fallacious Authority” corollary...lol?

dem·a·gogue
/ˈdeməˌɡäɡ/
noun
1.
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

Person 1: A demagogue is a political leader who eschews rational argument in favor of manipulating the fears and prejudices of ordinary people.
Donald Trump has openly displayed contempt for rational debate and encouraged racism, xenophobia, and divisiveness at his rallies.
Therefore, Donald Trump is a demagogue.

Person 2: That's just your opinion. Trump supporters don't feel manipulated, they feel listened to.

Subjectivist Fallacy
(also known as: relativist fallacy)

Description: Claiming something is true for one person, but not for someone else when, in fact, it is true for everyone (objective) as demonstrated by empirical evidence.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims that Y is true.

Person 2 claims that Y is true for some people, but not for everyone (even though empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise).

It appears that the relativism is clearly on Person 2.

The fallacy here is the implied "appeal to authority" imo. If Bob said Fred is fool, no one would publish it.

This kind of thing may even be considered a fallacy of false witness, and the use of such quotes a kind of misdirection. The quoter gets to portray his view without having to be accountable. The was a book called "Games People Play", and this is one called "Let's you and him fight." imo

Rhetoric is the use of phrasing and language to convince. Fallacies are components of rhetoric. Misdirection is a technique of rhetoric, but I don't know a fallacy named for it.

I thought about this for a few days. It's a basic ad hominem argument that conveys no useful information, but merely attacks Trump personally.

Or, put it this way: if you want to prove that Trump is a demagogue or whatever, give evidence to prove it.

The way the article has it written 1Hawkins is committing a fallacy of argument by repeated assertion, he stated a talking point as a factual statement, which the full quote refutes being a fact. "He is a demagogue, who ""seems"" to appeal to the lowest common denominator." If it "seems" to be he is doing what is a minimum requirement to be a demagogue then it can't be a fact Now refuting that by not addressing his false statement of fact but instead saying well trump supporters see it differently would be a explosion fallacy.