"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

[sserafim]

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

What do you think about this quote? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

 

[R_N]

Usually, deaths are truly a tragedy only for the individual they impact. Parting ways with people close to them for example.

Everyone else is afterthought. A 'statistic'.

 

[parallelluniverse]

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

What do you think about this quote? Do you agree or disagree? And why?

I think objectively it makes sense. I like how it interprets the reaction people may have towards death and mass deaths, it's got an interesting concept behind it. It suggests to me that one death is relatable, saddening, tragic... and many deaths are somewhat beyond emotional comprehension. I think it implies that such a thought as lamenting for so many deaths somewhat overruns human capacity, human emotional reactions may not surpass what amount of empathy is sound, fair and just for such a mass event. I think that seeing it merely as a stat though does not only reflect the inhumanity of simply labelling mass deaths as having only numeric significance, I think it also might represent that mass deaths are understated at times when people refer to such events (I think it will always be understated how problematically mass deaths can be spoken about with mere words). However, I somewhat agree and it makes sense that mass deaths becomes something where more logical thinking thinking is applied, whereas a single death, each at a time, is properly lamented.

Does that all make sense? Hope so

 

[theboy]

It's a game about how many people are important when they die.

 

[sserafim]

It's a game about how many people are important when they die.

Wdym? I think it means that one person's death is important and significant because they're an individual, but mass/many deaths become insignificant because they all lump and blur together. I think that people get desensitized to mass deaths and just view it as a greater whole (people in general) rather than its individual parts (a specific person).

 

[theboy]

Wdym? I think it means that one person's death is important and significant because they're an individual, but mass/many deaths become insignificant because they all lump and blur together. I think that people get desensitized to mass deaths and just view it as a greater whole (people in general) rather than its individual parts (a specific person).

Many dead people are more important than one, looking at it from the point of view that several lives are valuable instead of one. That's what I mean. In my opinion, I believe that a single person can be as valuable as if they were thousands.

 

[derpyderpins]

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

What do you think about this quote? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Well, I don't agree with it in a literal sense. Let's say you have two groups, one of a million people and one of a single person. They are all going to die, but you can press one of two buttons to save one of the groups. (Kinda a reverse trolley problem.) I'm going to save the million people. So, in that very literal sense, I disagree.

I like a lot of what @parallelluniverse said above. Rather than repeating it all, I'll just say that the statement is definitely more about human nature than the words being accurate.

I would take it one step further: the point of the quote is to be able to utilize the reactions people have as parallelluniverse describes.

Say, for example, Country A and Country B are at war, and I want to convince everyone to support Country A for whatever reason - good or bad. It is not very effective to tell numbers about the damage done and how many people Country B has killed. It would be much better to pick out a single citizen of Country A and tell the story of how Country B ruined their life and raped their daughter and then killed them the day before they could graduate from college. Now, I'm pulling at heart strings, and people are more invested. Even if Country A has actually killed far more people of Country B, I have convinced people Country B are the "bad guys," because they are so affected by the personal story. Unfortunately, this leads to fake stories being concocted, or at minimum exaggeration. The fact of the matter is that both Countries have probably done a ton of bad stuff, because war is messy, but the quote you reference is a lesson in messaging.

 

[parallelluniverse]

Well, I don't agree with it in a literal sense. Let's say you have two groups, one of a million people and one of a single person. They are all going to die, but you can press one of two buttons to save one of the groups. (Kinda a reverse trolley problem.) I'm going to save the million people. So, in that very literal sense, I disagree.

I like a lot of what @parallelluniverse said above. Rather than repeating it all, I'll just say that the statement is definitely more about human nature than the words being accurate.

I would take it one step further: the point of the quote is to be able to utilize the reactions people have as parallelluniverse describes.

Say, for example, Country A and Country B are at war, and I want to convince everyone to support Country A for whatever reason - good or bad. It is not very effective to tell numbers about the damage done and how many people Country B has killed. It would be much better to pick out a single citizen of Country A and tell the story of how Country B ruined their life and raped their daughter and then killed them the day before they could graduate from college. Now, I'm pulling at heart strings, and people are more invested. Even if Country A has actually killed far more people of Country B, I have convinced people Country B are the "bad guys," because they are so affected by the personal story. Unfortunately, this leads to fake stories being concocted, or at minimum exaggeration. The fact of the matter is that both Countries have probably done a ton of bad stuff, because war is messy, but the quote you reference is a lesson in messaging.

Thank you kindly derpyderpins

 

[DarkRange55]

I hope you didn't post this on my account

 

[sserafim]

I hope you didn't post this on my account

Wdym?

 

[DarkRange55]

Wdym?

just joking because you kept asking me what I thought about that quote

 

[sserafim]

just joking because you kept asking me what I thought about that quote

Oh okay lol. Well you still haven't said what you think about it

 

[Pluto]

I believe it's a Joseph Stalin misquote.

Regardless of its origin, it's a cold but honest acknowledgement of the way the grievances of individuals stop being empathised with as their numbers become overwhelming. By its nature, empathy requires an individual or a small group be personally relatable to the sympathising party.

I would argue that the same concept applies to slaughterhouse animals versus pets.

There are similar cognitive distortions of selective empathy in other fields, too. Missing white woman syndrome refers to disproportionate public attention to missing person cases involving the said demographic. The Bambi effect refers to 'cute' animals receiving a greater outpouring of support from animal rights activists.

 

[dragonofenvy]

You can tell one person's story. It's really hard to tell the story of a million. Once you reach high numbers it all becomes dehumanized since our brain can't comprehend that scale. But idk, I'd say they both can be tragic and uncared for at the same time. Lots of people die alone and nobody cares (see the elderly in nursing homes with nobody to visit them). Millions can die and people can be filled with despair (COVID-19 anyone?) Guess it depends on who you are. I don't really care about anyone dying unless it impacts me. Yeah I know real cold of me but I expect the same treatment myself.