Do they genuinely believe on a conscious level that Christopher Hitchens and Gamergate are worse than Osama bin Laden and ISIS respectively, or is it simply a subconscious Pavlovian spasm resulting from their almost complete social isolation and detachment from the real world?
I think they don't *really* believe it, as in if you were able to get them to actually articulate a defence of that position rather than simply dismiss you, they would admit that no, Hitchens/GG aren't *actually* worse. But they think that kind of exaggeration for effect and hyperbole is fine when they do it, but something that should be demonised if someone does the same that they don't agree with. The usual 'it's alright when
we do it' position of the SJW.
I may be wrong. In my experience, sometimes when you think someone's exaggerating wildly to make a point, it turns out they actually believe what they're saying, and as
@_blank_ points out, something like GamerGate could be considered worse by them because it actually affected them personally, rather than the unwashed masses in foreign countries they only pretend to care about. But usually I've found that if you can get them to actually try and explain themselves rather than them just dismissing any and all criticism (which is a very common response), they'll admit they don't actually believe it, but, but, but but but ... and they twist themselves into a pretzel of logic where they essentially say 'they're not worse than ISIS but they're really just as bad in their own way if you think about it'.
Because to them, once you're 'a bad person', whether it be through mass murder or saying mean things on the internet, then you're sufficiently othered and those people can all be treated the same. Because they only think in black and white, holy and evil.