I vote three, for the exact same reason.

Well, they had me there. Fair point.

I always wondered how people could talk or think about burning books and not consider themselves to be a villain. Wth, I probably wouldn’t even burn Mein Kampf or Mao’s red book and you want to burn novels you’ve enjoyed because the writer endorses a politician.

It’s going to be very hard having the same opinion for all of these (somewhat abstract) instances - considering how wildly incompatible some of these are.

EDIT: Also, wrong (but arguably original) use of template.

Trust me bro(ette): Rubber duck is the SHIT. I don’t even program save for a few rare instances, but any complex issue where you just know something is wrong but can’t quite put your finger on it? It works miracles. A lot better tbf if you are actually explaining it to someone who can ask questions, but any object that you can look at is a good substitute.

How do you do something “in the name of Atheism”? You are being pedantic. These were/are crusades against the culture and faith of a different people. One could argue that they are not “genocides” and it needn’t even be in bad faith. Your “assuming 100% accuracy”-statement on the other hand disgusts me, no offense intended. People are suffering, at least aknowledge the fact.

Goodness, you are right: I entirely forgot to name the Holocaust (which probably isn’t what you were going for). That could certainly be considered genocide against a religion.

I mean … I guess you could consider the planned extermination of Nepalese culture and faith or the concentration camps full of Uyghurs for “re-education” an attempt at genocide if you wanted to use the term very liberally?