Many people, of course, think Stalin was one of the greatest monsters in history, among other reasons, for the Holodomor, Soviet man-made famine.
I don't know what a sociopath is, ultimately, but it's not nearly as obvious as you think that Churchill goes in a different bucket than Stalin.
Oh and Gandhi...Gandhi famously said in response to the Holocaust that the Jews should've committed mass suicide since they were going to die anyway, and then maybe the world would've given a shit.
George Orwell (who was an apologist and ineffective propagandist for British colonialism during WWII) praised Gandhi for honesty and adhering to his principles, but claimed he didn't understand totalitarianism, that his movement could not have succeeded in Nazi Germany because it wouldn't have gotten any publicity.
You are debating someone who said they were saints, which I didn't, or with someone who fits some strawperson profile in your mind.
> it's not nearly as obvious as you think that Churchill goes in a different bucket than Stalin
You might be surprised that I might know more about it than you imagine, maybe more than you. It is pretty obvious that they belong in different buckets.
That's fine. I am not debating what a sociopath is, we can agree it's some kind of bad thing and if you would like to define it better be my guest.
My point is and was, that you didn't list Stalin, and putting him in either list is...problematic, as they say, when you consider Churchill and the Bengal famine.
Now I am not making any straw man or putting words in your mouth. I am interested in how you fit Stalin into your framework, not in telling you how to.
I'm not pushing the moral equivalence of Stalin and Churchill. Not at all. I'm just saying that there are well known facts that could support the opinion they are similar, and I'm fairly confident there are a lot of people (maybe millions) with that opinion.
That doesn't mean you or I need to accept it, but it does suggest to me that, from a global perspective, it should be considered respectable or at least not shocking.
There is a Wikipedia page on Washington-and-slavery, and while this is a tangent I don't want to discuss here and now, being aware of it makes the question of how to define a sociopath very complex in my mind.
Oh dear...we can all agree about Gandhi and Churchill? They go together like Le Duc Tho and Kissinger.
Churchill is associated with a famine in India during WWII that killed 2-4 million people.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Many people, of course, think Stalin was one of the greatest monsters in history, among other reasons, for the Holodomor, Soviet man-made famine.
I don't know what a sociopath is, ultimately, but it's not nearly as obvious as you think that Churchill goes in a different bucket than Stalin.
Oh and Gandhi...Gandhi famously said in response to the Holocaust that the Jews should've committed mass suicide since they were going to die anyway, and then maybe the world would've given a shit.
George Orwell (who was an apologist and ineffective propagandist for British colonialism during WWII) praised Gandhi for honesty and adhering to his principles, but claimed he didn't understand totalitarianism, that his movement could not have succeeded in Nazi Germany because it wouldn't have gotten any publicity.