How is it strawman? Those are actual real world actions people commited, because of their opinions.

Not even month ago. Ignoring yesterday, there was plan and attempt to execute Mitchigan governor last few months. There was Nashville boombing, likely due to whatever conspiracy theory that man believed.

Even Elliot Rodger had opinions largely from incels chans.

Let me use another scenario. 1969, Brazil. Members of a revolutionary group kidnapped the US Ambassador. After that, and a few other incidents, the government used the same argument you presented to review and approve contents of newspapers, magazines, radio shows, movies and correspondence.

Do you believe it is OK to do this, in order to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of domestic terror is a tyrannical government?

The very same situation has happened across all of South America throughout the 20th Century.

[1]: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-...

You asked following: "Why do you want to go to great lengths and "educate" people on your point of view?"

The only strawman in this thread is the one made by you in the comment I am responding to now.

How is it a strawman, it literally just happened a few days ago.

They may be referring to the first statement, which in my experience doesn't seem true. I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state. That may be my failing, however.

> I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state.

Trump praised China for paving the way to make Xi Jinping's presidency permanent

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises...

> “He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

Which IMO implies support for a one-party state.

What do you think it means when you lose an election, and then try to disrupt the democratic process with the goal of having the loser of the election retain power?