This website is proof that dictatorship can be benevolent if it's done with respect to the populace.

I mean, that would be true if there were any feasible, halfway decent alternative for DART.

Well...I would have to agree that DebateArt is a cut above other sites that I have participated in.

And as feel I liberally democracised rather than dictatacised , then I see no reason to go anywhere else.

Do you feel autocracised in any way?

N.B.  I made up democracised , autocracised and dictatacised, but they seem to work O.K.....It always worked for George Dubya.

It is not a democracy, nothing the populace says or does stops those in power staying in power. Just as with a real dictatorship, if you find a way to leave the place that the dictator rules, that's your way out but even that doesn't truly stop them being powerful.

Technically, this site would be closest to a constitutional monarchy, with a head of state (DebateArt.com) who holds mostly symbolic power, with parliament (in this case, the mods) making the actual decisions (with the aid of a democratic process, which in this case would be the MEEPs). Sort of like the British Commonwealth and the Scandinavian countries (which would explain why it is seen as free by many, while a minority believes it is oppressive). 

I believe it's democratized, autocratized, and... I don't know for the last one lol

But they work anyways, so yeah ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think this site is closer to a constitutional monarchy than a dictatorship (see above)

O.K....I'll run with Constitutional Monarchy......But with a reasonably liberal  and democratic administration.

How's that for British diplomacy?

From a scale of Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson, I'd say that was pretty David Cameron 👌

A constitutional monarchy is a benevolent dictatorship.

A constitutional monarchy may or may not be a benevolent dictatorship....In fact all governmental systems require a level of imposed authority, otherwise they would fail to be governmental. 

Usually we do not associate dictatorship with benevolence....I would suggest that your use of terminology is atypical

I'm grateful that you didn't compare me to George Dubya's shoulder to shoulder buddy.......Or should I say lickarse.

I do feel that our participation in the 2nd Iraq conflict was a tad dictated.

I am going to disagree here since by nature a dictatorship will always create and enforce laws based on the what the leaders think is benevolence. However, this doesn't always match up with what their citizens believe benevolence to be. The best way to be benevolent to the people is by allowing them to practice their own ideas of benevolence as long as they are not infringing on other's rights to practice their own idea of benevolence.

Not saying he was perfect, but compared to other dictators in that region and era and considering the coup was because Allende was trying to become a dictator himself, then he really wasn't that bad.

It really depends on the level of power the monarch has. Sometimes it can be considered a benevolent dictatorship, other times it's a fully-fledged republic with a figurehead at the top. 

Eh, I'd say George Dubya and Margaret Thatcher are about the same.

I don't think many Americans supported that war in the later years either.

I mean, you have somewhat of a point (South American Juntas were all pretty bad in the 70s).

George Dudya's buddy was a guy called Tony Blair....Remember him?

Oh yeah.

In terms of Anglo-American duos, they're good. But Trump + Johnson on the other hand...

Donald and Boris just don't have the same chemistry as George and Tony did.

Though Donald blows hot and cold with his international bromances....It looked like he and Emmanuel were really getting it on at one time....

He even had  brief flings with Kim and Xi....But to be honest they were never going to last, were they?