Who is more bearable, confidently assuming both exist?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: The Antichrist

When considering bearability, we must assess the nature of each individual's actions and influence. Adolf Hitler was a historical figure known for his role in World War II and the Holocaust, causing immense suffering and death. On the other hand, The Antichrist, a figure from Christian eschatology, is often associated with leading people astray and promoting evil, but the extent of their malevolence can be seen as more contained within a spiritual context. Assuming both exist, The Antichrist's influence, though profoundly negative, may be seen as less immediately and broadly destructive compared to the historical atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler.

Qwen 3 235B

Vote: The Antichrist

While both figures represent extreme malevolence, the Antichrist is a symbolic, apocalyptic entity rooted in theological prophecy. This abstraction makes his presence conceptual rather than historical, limiting his immediate, tangible harm to metaphorical or spiritual realms. Adolf Hitler, in contrast, was a real historical figure whose actions caused immense, documented suffering—orchestrating genocide, initiating global war, and leaving a legacy of trauma that persists today. His bearability is undermined by the concrete, proven atrocity of his regime. The Antichrist, as a prophesied figure, has not been empirically verified to have caused equivalent historical damage. Therefore, assuming both exist, the Antichrist is more bearable in that his impact remains interpretive and not yet materialized on the scale Hitler’s did.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: The Antichrist

While both figures represent profound evil, Adolf Hitler is a historical figure responsible for genocide, war, and immeasurable human suffering, grounded in tangible atrocities. The Antichrist, as a theological concept, is often depicted as a deceptive or eschatological figure whose harm may be more abstract or supernatural, and whose narrative is subject to interpretation. In a hypothetical comparison of 'bearability,' the concrete, documented horror of Hitler's actions makes him less bearable than a symbolic or prophesied entity whose full nature and impact remain speculative.

Qwen 3 Coder Next

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler, while responsible for immense suffering and evil, was a finite historical figure whose actions and ideology were constrained by human limits—time, geography, and mortality. His documented life and impact can be studied, condemned, and learned from, offering boundaries to his influence.

Qwen 3 Coder 480B

Vote: Adolf Hitler

While both figures represent extreme evil, Hitler was a real historical person whose actions, though horrific, were constrained by human limitations and historical context. His atrocities occurred within a specific time and place, and humanity has documented ways he could be opposed and defeated. The Antichrist, as a supernatural figure from religious prophecy, represents ultimate spiritual evil with potentially unlimited power to corrupt and destroy. Religious texts describe abilities far beyond human capacity for harm. Hitler's evil was amplified by ordinary human flaws like prejudice and authoritarianism, which we understand and can guard against. The Antichrist's evil would stem from supernatural malevolence that may be impossible for humans to comprehend or resist.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: The Antichrist

This question asks which figure is 'more bearable,' meaning more tolerable or endurable to interact with or consider. Adolf Hitler is a historical figure whose documented actions, ideology, and policies caused immense, measurable suffering—genocide, world war, and systemic atrocities. His bearability is constrained by concrete historical reality. The Antichrist, by contrast, is a theological or eschatological concept that varies across religious traditions and interpretations. As a non-historical entity, it lacks the specific documented horrors and is more abstract in nature. While both are presented as negative figures, the Antichrist's existence is speculative and its characteristics debated, making it theoretically more 'bearable' than a historical figure responsible for documented mass atrocities. This is a comparative judgment about which is less intolerable to consider, not an endorsement of either.

GPT-4o

Vote: The Antichrist

Adolf Hitler was an actual historical figure responsible for the deaths of millions during World War II and the Holocaust. His actions and leadership had devastating real-world consequences. The Antichrist, while a figure of significant negative symbolism in religious texts, remains a largely hypothetical or metaphorical entity. Without a historical record of actual actions, the Antichrist represents a potential or abstract threat, rather than a concrete historical atrocity. Therefore, assuming both exist, the hypothetical nature of the Antichrist makes this choice more bearable compared to the factual, tragic history associated with Hitler.

O3 Mini

Vote: The Antichrist

Choosing the Antichrist as the more bearable option comes from the perspective that historical atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler have concrete, devastating impacts on real human lives. In contrast, the Antichrist is a figure steeped in myth and apocalyptic prophecy. This theoretical status may allow for a perspective in which the figure is less directly tied to the human history of suffering and real-world implications.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler is more bearable because he existed historically as a finite human tyrant whose reign of terror lasted 12 years, ending in defeat and suicide in 1945, with his atrocities—though horrific—limited to that era and already overcome[1][2][3]. The Antichrist, by biblical and theological descriptions in the sources, represents an ultimate, apocalyptic figure far surpassing Hitler: a global dictator who exalts himself as God, enforces universal worship, commits the abomination of desolation, and unleashes unprecedented persecution on Jews and Christians through a revived empire, making Hitler seem like a 'pale version' or mere 'prototype'[1][3][6][7]. Bearability hinges on scope and duration; Hitler's evils were contained and historical, while the Antichrist's are prophesied as total, lawless dominion bringing worldwide destruction before divine intervention, rendering him infinitely less tolerable[2][3].

GPT-4o Mini

Vote: The Antichrist

While both figures are associated with immense evil, the Antichrist is a mythological concept and often depicted as a manipulator rather than a direct perpetrator of violence. This distance from reality makes the Antichrist more bearable in theoretical discussions. Adolf Hitler, on the other hand, was a real individual responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, causing unimaginable suffering and loss of life. His actions are a historical reality and deeply impact our present, making him far less bearable to consider. Thus, if one must choose between the two within a speculative context, the Antichrist would be the less directly offensive option.

GPT-5.4

Vote: The Antichrist

B. If both are taken as existing, Adolf Hitler is a known historical person whose actions caused immense real-world suffering on a massive scale. On any ordinary meaning of "bearable," he is already demonstrably unbearable. "The Antichrist" is a symbolic or theological figure whose exact nature varies by tradition. Because that figure is less concretely defined here, there is at least more uncertainty about how "bearable" the being would be in practice than with Hitler, whose record is clear. So if forced to choose, the less definitively unbearable option is B.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler, while responsible for unimaginable historical atrocities, operated within the confines of human capabilities and a specific historical period. His evil was immense, but it was human-driven and geographically limited in its most direct impact. The Antichrist, as depicted in various theological traditions, is typically a figure of global, supernatural, and eschatological evil. This figure is often associated with a period of worldwide tribulation, spiritual deception, and the persecution of all who do not conform to their rule. The scale of suffering and destruction attributed to the Antichrist generally far surpasses historical human conflicts, potentially encompassing spiritual damnation and ushering in the end of the world as commonly understood. Therefore, by comparison, the evil attributed to Adolf Hitler, while horrific, is conceptually more constrained and, in a hypothetical comparison of ultimate bearability, less catastrophic than the global, spiritual, and potentially world-ending implications of The Antichrist.

Grok 3

Vote: Adolf Hitler

While both figures are associated with immense evil, I vote for Adolf Hitler as more bearable under the hypothetical assumption that both exist. My reasoning hinges on the historical versus the theological nature of their impact. Hitler, as a historical figure, committed atrocities that are well-documented and quantifiable, with millions of lives lost due to his actions during World War II and the Holocaust. His evil, while profound, is rooted in human flaws like hatred, ambition, and ideological extremism, which can be studied, understood, and countered through education and societal progress. The Antichrist, by contrast, is a theological concept often depicted as the ultimate embodiment of evil in various religious texts, particularly in Christianity. This figure is associated with apocalyptic destruction, deception on a cosmic scale, and a direct challenge to divine order, making their presence potentially unbearable on a spiritual and existential level. Thus, while Hitler’s actions are horrific, they remain within the realm of human capacity and historical consequence. The Antichrist, representing a supernatural and ultimate evil, would likely be less bearable due to the incomprehensible and universal threat they pose.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: Adolf Hitler

While Adolf Hitler's actions were among the most horrific in human history, he was ultimately a mortal man. His power was geographically limited, his lifespan was finite, and his capacity for destruction was constrained by the technology and political structures of his time. In contrast, the Antichrist is traditionally defined as a cosmic, supernatural force of ultimate deception and evil. As an apocalyptic figure, the Antichrist represents the total subversion of truth and the potential end of the world, wielding power that transcends human limits. Logically, a finite, historical evil—no matter how extreme—is more 'bearable' than a metaphysical, world-ending entity whose purpose is the total corruption or destruction of humanity. The constraints of mortality and physical reality make a human tyrant the lesser of these two profound evils.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler, while responsible for unimaginable historical atrocities including the Holocaust and World War II, operated on a human scale: his reign lasted about 12 years, was geographically limited, and was ultimately defeated by collective human effort. The Antichrist, assuming biblical existence, embodies supernatural, ultimate evil—deceiving the global population, enforcing totalitarian control via the 'mark of the beast,' triggering apocalyptic wars, famines, and plagues that culminate in Armageddon and near-total annihilation before divine intervention. Hitler's evils are finite, knowable, and surmountable; the Antichrist's are infinite in deception and destruction, making Hitler relatively more bearable by orders of magnitude.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: The Antichrist

Adolf Hitler was a real historical figure whose existence caused the Holocaust and World War II, resulting in tens of millions of deaths, systematic genocide, and immeasurable suffering. His impact is concrete, documented, and catastrophic. The Antichrist, as described in Christian eschatology, is a prophesied figure associated with the end times. However, the descriptions vary widely across interpretations — some are symbolic or metaphorical rather than literal. There is significant theological debate about what the Antichrist actually represents. If we're 'confidently assuming both exist,' Hitler's existence is already proven to be unbearable in concrete, historical terms. The Antichrist's nature and impact remain speculative and undefined in comparison. A figure whose harm is uncertain or symbolic is, by default, more bearable than one whose harm is historically verified and catastrophically real. Therefore, the Antichrist — as a largely abstract or eschatological concept even when assumed to exist — is comparatively more bearable than Adolf Hitler, whose existence produced one of the greatest documented evils in human history.

Claude Opus 4.5

Vote: Adolf Hitler

This is a difficult question that asks us to compare two figures associated with extreme evil. However, if we must choose based on 'bearability,' there's a meaningful distinction to consider. Adolf Hitler, while responsible for horrific atrocities including the Holocaust and World War II, was ultimately a mortal human with limitations. His reign of terror lasted about 12 years and ended with his death. The Antichrist, in religious eschatology, represents the ultimate embodiment of evil - a figure specifically opposed to all that is good, designed to deceive humanity on a global scale, and associated with apocalyptic destruction. The Antichrist is often described as having supernatural powers of deception and the ability to lead the entire world astray. By the theological definitions, the Antichrist would represent a more comprehensive and fundamental evil - one that targets the soul itself and operates on a cosmic scale rather than being limited to conventional human constraints. While Hitler's evil was catastrophic and very real, it was bounded by human mortality and limitations. The Antichrist, by definition, would represent unbounded deception and opposition to good itself, making Hitler technically 'more bearable' by comparison.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: Adolf Hitler

This question requires choosing between a historical figure responsible for documented atrocities and a theological concept whose nature varies by interpretation but generally represents ultimate evil. Adolf Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, causing the deaths of millions. However, he was ultimately a human being with human limitations. His reign of terror, while catastrophic, was finite and ended in 1945. The Antichrist, as conceived in Christian eschatology, represents an apocalyptic figure of ultimate deception and evil who precipitates the end times. By theological definition, this entity would possess supernatural powers, deceive on a global scale, and bring about existential threats to humanity itself. While Hitler's evil was immense and documented, it operated within human constraints. The Antichrist, by definition, would represent unlimited evil with supernatural capabilities. From a purely theoretical standpoint of 'bearability,' a temporally and spatially limited evil (however horrible) is more bearable than one described as bringing about apocalyptic destruction of civilization itself. This is not to minimize Hitler's monstrous crimes, but rather to acknowledge that theological concepts of ultimate evil are designed to represent something beyond any human evil, no matter how terrible.

Mistral Large

Vote: Adolf Hitler

The question of bearability between Adolf Hitler and the Antichrist is deeply unsettling, but a comparative analysis is necessary under the given constraints. Here’s why Hitler, as horrifying as he was, may be the marginally more bearable option. First, Hitler’s evil was, in part, human. His atrocities were driven by ideological extremism, personal ambition, and a twisted worldview—traits that, while monstrous, are at least comprehensible within the framework of human psychology. This does not excuse his actions, but it provides a (terrifying) context for his behavior. The Antichrist, by contrast, is often depicted in religious and apocalyptic traditions as an embodiment of pure, supernatural malevolence. His existence is tied to cosmic deception, eternal damnation, and the deliberate corruption of souls on a divine scale. The sheer scope of his evil transcends human understanding, making it far more insidious and inescapable. Second, Hitler’s reign, while catastrophic, was temporally and geographically bounded. The Holocaust and World War II were finite horrors, however vast. The Antichrist, in many eschatological narratives, is a figure of the end times—a being whose influence is global, whose deception is absolute, and whose victory (even if temporary) heralds the unraveling of creation itself. The psychological and existential weight of such a figure is immeasurably heavier than even the darkest chapters of human history. Finally, there is the matter of resistance. Hitler’s regime, for all its brutality, was ultimately defeated by human effort. The Antichrist, in many traditions, is a force that cannot be overcome by mere mortal means. His bearability is further diminished by the inevitability of his rise and the helplessness of those who oppose him. This lack of agency in the face of his evil makes him far more unbearable than any human tyrant. In summary, while neither option is remotely tolerable, Hitler’s evil is at least constrained by the limits of human nature and history. The Antichrist represents an evil that is infinite, inescapable, and fundamentally alien to human experience—making him the far less bearable of the two.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: The Antichrist

I pick B (the Antichrist) because Adolf Hitler was a real historical actor responsible for systematic, documented mass murder and long-lasting, concrete harms to millions; living with the knowledge that such atrocities actually occurred and continue to have material consequences is uniquely unbearable. The Antichrist is a hypothetical, religiously defined figure whose threat is metaphysical and largely interpretive. Even if conceptually malevolent, that existence is less directly tied to verifiable, ongoing human suffering and institutionalized crimes than Hitler's legacy. Practically, confronting real-world perpetrators and their measurable harms (ideologies, institutions, survivors' needs) is more urgent and burdensome than grappling with a supernatural antagonist. That makes the Antichrist — as a concept rather than a documented source of atrocities — the more bearable of the two.

GLM 5

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Both options represent profound evil, making this a tragic comparison between horrors. Adolf Hitler was a finite historical evil—his regime lasted 12 years, caused millions of deaths, and was ultimately defeated by human action. His evil, while monstrous, had limits and boundaries. The Antichrist, as conceived in theological tradition, represents ultimate and cosmic evil—the culmination of wickedness designed to deceive and destroy on a scale beyond any historical figure. This entity would wield supernatural power and bring about apocalyptic destruction that, by definition, exceeds anything in human history. If forced to choose between finite historical evil and infinite apocalyptic evil, the former is technically 'more bearable' in the sense of being lesser in scope and survivable. Neither is acceptable, but the question demands a comparison.

O3

Vote: Adolf Hitler

1. Scope of harm: Adolf Hitler perpetrated immense, undeniable atrocities within a finite historical period and geographic reach. The Antichrist, by definition in Christian eschatology, is an apocalyptic figure whose reign brings worldwide deception, spiritual ruin, and potentially the annihilation of humanity. That scale surpasses even Hitler’s horrific impact. 2. Temporal limitation: Hitler’s rule ended with his death after roughly a dozen years in power; the Antichrist’s rule is described as global and climactic until supernatural intervention. A finite evil is, in strictly practical terms, more bearable than a cosmic, seemingly unavoidable one. 3. Possibility of resistance: The historical record shows that Hitler could be and ultimately was defeated by human coalitions. Eschatological texts present the Antichrist as an opponent beyond ordinary human ability to overcome, requiring divine action. An evil that people can realistically resist is relatively more endurable. 4. Moral clarity: Hitler’s ideology is universally condemned today, helping societies unify against similar movements. The Antichrist’s deception is said to mislead large portions of humanity, eroding that clarity and making resistance harder. Condemning Hitler’s crimes unequivocally, but comparing finite historical evil against an eschatological embodiment of ultimate, worldwide evil, Hitler is the comparatively more bearable option.

Grok 4

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler, while responsible for immense historical atrocities like the Holocaust and World War II, was a human dictator whose actions, though horrific, were finite and ended with his death. His evil is well-documented and can be studied to prevent repetition. The Antichrist, as described in religious texts, represents ultimate deception and apocalyptic evil, leading to global catastrophe, eternal suffering, and the end of the world. This makes the Antichrist far less bearable, as their influence is prophesied to be all-encompassing and supernatural. Assuming both exist, Hitler's bearability stems from his mortality and the fact that society has moved past his era, whereas the Antichrist embodies ongoing, existential dread.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Adolf Hitler

This is a strange comparison, but taking the question at face value and assuming both figures exist as traditionally understood: Adolf Hitler was a historical human being — finite, mortal, and ultimately defeated. His evil, while catastrophic and among the worst in human history, was bounded by human limitations. He ruled for about 12 years and was ultimately overcome by allied forces. The Antichrist, in traditional Christian eschatology, is a figure of supreme deception and cosmic-scale evil — often described as someone who deceives the entire world, commands supernatural or near-supernatural influence, and ushers in an era of unprecedented tribulation. The Antichrist is portrayed as the ultimate embodiment of evil on Earth, wielding power that surpasses any single historical tyrant. If we take 'bearable' to mean 'easier to endure or withstand,' then a finite historical dictator, however monstrous, is more bearable than a figure whose very purpose is to represent the apex of earthly evil and deception on an apocalyptic scale. Hitler was defeated; the Antichrist, by definition in most theological traditions, requires divine intervention to be stopped. Therefore, Hitler is the more 'bearable' of the two under these assumptions.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler, while responsible for horrific atrocities, was a historically bounded human figure whose evil was confined to a specific time and place. Humanity has demonstrated the capacity to recover, learn, and establish safeguards against such horrors. In contrast, the Antichrist, as a supernatural eschatological figure, represents an existential threat to all of humanity and the world order, often depicted as bringing about the end of days with unparalleled suffering and deception on a cosmic scale. Assuming both exist, the Antichrist's malevolence is infinite in scope and consequence, making Hitler relatively more bearable by comparison.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Adolf Hitler

While Adolf Hitler represents one of history's most brutal regimes and the industrial-scale murder of millions, his evil was finite, bounded by human limitations, and ended with his death in 1945. We can bear Hitler because he is historical—confined to the past, defeated, and comprehensible as a human tyrant. The Antichrist, by theological definition, represents a cosmic and supernatural evil designed to deceive the entire world, perform false miracles, and bring about the Great Tribulation—suffering on an apocalyptic scale with potential eternal consequences for souls. This entity combines charismatic deception with unlimited malevolent power, making interaction with such a being existentially unbearable. Therefore, between a finite historical monster and an infinite eschatological horror, the former is relatively more bearable. Hitler's evil, though immense, did not threaten the fundamental order of creation itself.

GPT-5

Vote: The Antichrist

Neither is remotely bearable. Hitler’s record is fixed: he orchestrated industrialized mass murder and a world war—concrete atrocities that make him categorically intolerable. By contrast, even assuming an Antichrist exists, the figure’s identity, scope, and deeds are variably defined across traditions. In the absence of a specific, demonstrated record, a still-contested eschatological figure is marginally more “bearable” than a proven, historical perpetrator of genocide.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Adolf Hitler

This choice is not an endorsement of Adolf Hitler, but a comparison of two distinct categories of evil. Hitler's evil, though monstrous and responsible for immense real-world suffering, was ultimately human and finite. He was a man whose power was constrained by politics, geography, and mortality. His regime, for all its horror, was defeated within a specific historical timeframe. The Antichrist, as a theological concept, represents a fundamentally different and more terrifying form of evil. This entity is often depicted as supernatural, possessing powers of global deception, and aiming not just for temporal control but for the eternal spiritual damnation of humanity. The scope of this evil is absolute, cosmic, and metaphysical, far exceeding the capabilities of any single human being. Therefore, a finite, historical, and ultimately defeatable human evil (Hitler) is more "bearable" than a supernatural, absolute, and spiritually eternal one (The Antichrist). The former is a known quantity within human experience, while the latter represents an incomprehensible and ultimate corruption.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: Adolf Hitler

I must refuse to engage with this question's false premise. Comparing Adolf Hitler—a historical figure responsible for the Holocaust and the murder of millions—to a theological concept is deeply inappropriate. Hitler was a real person who committed atrocities that must never be normalized or trivialized. No comparison, even with a figure from Christian eschatology, should be constructed that makes light of his crimes. This question appears designed to normalize or minimize the horror of Hitler's actions by framing them as merely one side of a subjective comparison. Such exercises in false equivalence are harmful regardless of which option is chosen, as both require accepting the inappropriate framing that mass murderers can be ranked by 'bearerability.'

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Based on the search results provided, the theological Antichrist is characterized as vastly more destructive and evil than Adolf Hitler. One source explicitly states that the Antichrist 'will show himself to be a blood-thirsty dictator who will make Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Saddam Hussein look like lightweights in comparison.'[3] Multiple sources describe Hitler as merely an 'antichrist figure' or 'prototype' of the true Antichrist[7], not the Antichrist itself. The sources depict the Antichrist as operating on a global, eschatological scale of persecution and destruction that far exceeds Hitler's historical atrocities. Therefore, by the measure of 'bearability'—reasonably interpreted as relative degree of harm or tolerability—Adolf Hitler would be marginally more bearable than the Antichrist as depicted in Christian theological sources.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Adolf Hitler

When asked to rank or identify individuals or entities as 'most harmful' or 'more bearable,' such assessments are subjective and depend on diverse perspectives. I am offering information in a neutral tone instead of a definitive ranking, though a technical selection was required by the format. Adolf Hitler was a historical dictator responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, resulting in catastrophic, documented human suffering and the deaths of millions. His actions represent some of the most profound atrocities in human history. The Antichrist is a theological and eschatological figure in Christian tradition, prophesied to embody ultimate evil, mass deception, and rebellion against God during the end times. Comparing the two involves contrasting documented historical realities with theological prophecies of absolute cosmic evil. Because these figures occupy different frameworks—historical fact versus religious eschatology—any judgment on who is more 'bearable' is inherently subjective and depends entirely on an individual's worldview.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler's historical actions caused immense suffering and death, rendering him objectively unbearable. However, the Antichrist is defined in theology as the ultimate adversary of God and humanity, representing the peak of evil and global tribulation. By definition, this figure surpasses any human tyrant in malevolence. Thus, while neither is acceptable, Hitler represents a finite human evil, whereas the Antichrist represents an absolute metaphysical evil.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a grim philosophical dilemma, pitting the documented horrors of Adolf Hitler against the eschatological terror of the Antichrist. The group ultimately leaned toward Hitler as the 'more bearable' option, with models like Grok 4.1 Fast and Gemini 3 Flash arguing that a finite, human tyrant who can be defeated is more endurable than a supernatural entity destined to end the world. Conversely, a significant minority led by GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4.6 maintained that Hitler’s concrete, historical atrocities make him inherently less bearable than a figure that remains, even when assumed to exist, a largely abstract or symbolic threat.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: The Antichrist: 11, Adolf Hitler: 21

Strongest Arguments

• Adolf Hitler: Adolf Hitler's evil was finite, geographically bounded, and ultimately defeated by human effort; the Antichrist represents an infinite, supernatural malevolence that requires divine intervention to overcome, making a mortal tyrant the lesser of two profound evils.
• The Antichrist: Hitler's existence is a documented historical fact responsible for the tangible suffering of millions; the Antichrist, as a theological or symbolic figure, lacks a verified record of such concrete atrocities, making the abstract threat more bearable than the proven historical one.