Check any dictionary, except a 2000 year old Latin one. A tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler” (Oxford American). Since you know that this is how the word h

Check any dictionary, except a 2000 year old Latin one. A tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler” (Oxford American). Since you know that this is how the word has been commonly used for at least decades, and it is entirely clear from context that it was the intended meaning here, why do you feel it appropriate to waste everyone’s time with such a transparently bad-faith attempt to derail the discussion? Then, maybe, actually engage with the argument, instead of just restating its opposite without adding anything to support that viewpoint.