The Oppression Olympics is a well-know race to the bottom. Who is the most oppressed? See this funny article from Gawker.
But what about the Atrocity Olympics? What about the idea that the victims of Mass Atrocity X are worth more than the victims of Mass Atrocity Y?
There are two kinds of people; those who think there is a hierarchy here, and those who think the it is completely idiotic to say some atrocities ‘worse,’ some victims are ‘more oppressed’ or ‘worth more than others,’ some perpetrators are ‘more evil.’
I get frustrated when people seem to think some victims are worth more than others (with the odd exception; say, the Sparts in Nazi Germany).
In your opinion, are people sincere when they say the following are morally consequential differences?
1. The number of people killed.
2. The industrialization and systematization of the violence.
3. The irrational anarchic brutality of the violence.
4. Attempts to exterminate an entire people.
5. The long-drawn attempts to torture and demean people before actually killing them.
6. The humiliating means of execution.
Are they sincere?
And what really makes these people tick?
I really don’t understand the mindset of those who appeal to such characters in order to play ‘Atrocity Olympics.’
What do you think is going on here? Leave your thoughts below.
By US Army Signal Corps (File:Stalin 1945.jpg) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons