>Every evil regime in history takes it upon itself to define and eliminate hateful content, using the contemporary unconscionable act to justify this evil.
>This current situation is the start of the road to tyranny.
I'm not a historian, but I can't think of many examples where an evil regime gained power by slowly "boiling the frog" and gradually eroding free speech rights.
Communist dictators typically seized power in a violent revolution spurred on by deliberate misinformation campaigns.
Many of the Middle-Eastern dictators seized power in a not-so violent revolution (at least, not violent enough to cause
a full-scale civil war) spurred on by deliberate misinformation campaigns.
The colonial powers maintained their grip on power by denying education to the natives, and when they left the dictators that took their place seized power by violence even in a Western legal framework.
Maybe the Nazis did this (I'm honestly not sure), and maybe Julius Caesar too? But this doesn't seem to be a set-in-stone, guaranteed way of seizing power.
>This current situation is the start of the road to tyranny.
I'm not a historian, but I can't think of many examples where an evil regime gained power by slowly "boiling the frog" and gradually eroding free speech rights.
Communist dictators typically seized power in a violent revolution spurred on by deliberate misinformation campaigns.
Many of the Middle-Eastern dictators seized power in a not-so violent revolution (at least, not violent enough to cause a full-scale civil war) spurred on by deliberate misinformation campaigns.
The colonial powers maintained their grip on power by denying education to the natives, and when they left the dictators that took their place seized power by violence even in a Western legal framework.
Maybe the Nazis did this (I'm honestly not sure), and maybe Julius Caesar too? But this doesn't seem to be a set-in-stone, guaranteed way of seizing power.