Originally Posted by RamboPreacher
nope. guess I never made the assumption that dictator equated tyrant. a dictator is a dictator. a person can be a tyrant. my point was exactly that, though. without definition, dictator can have a negative colloquial connotation, even if the definition isn't. so I added benevolent.
Maybe not an assumption, but by common knowledge a person posting dictator
would not need to apply: "commonly known" or "associated with" as the related terminology.
I understand your point though. By the correct definition a dictator is neither good nor bad, but a title or position. It is up to the person in the position of power to carry out their role wisely/foolishly and benevolently/malevolently.