Everyone has been treated badly by members of a different group at some point in their life, and responsible adults are expected to get over it and get on with things.

This may be the way now, but it doesn't have to be the way always. Max Hastings, my favourite WW2 historian, says in his All Hell Let Loose:

One of the most important truths about the war, as indeed about all human affairs, is that people can interpret what happens to them only in the context of their own circumstances. The fact that, objectively and statistically, the sufferings of some individuals were less terrible than those of others elsewhere in the world was meaningless to those concerned. It would have seemed monstrous to a British or American soldier facing a mortar barrage, with his comrades dying around him, to be told that Russian casualties were many times greater. It would have been insulting to invite a hungry Frenchman, or even an English housewife weary of the monotony of rations, to consider that in besieged Leningrad starving people were eating each other, while in West Bengal they were selling their daughters. Few people who endured the Luftwaffe’s 1940–41 blitz on London would have been comforted by knowledge that the German and Japanese peoples would later face losses from Allied bombing many times greater, together with unparalleled devastation. It is the duty and privilege of historians to deploy relativism in a fashion that cannot be expected of contemporary participants.

In other words, a boy being bullied at school or a girl shrinking in disgust and fear from a drunken man's cat-call do experience suffering and negative emotion on their own scale of awfulness - and the fact that millions of people in the 3rd world have it much worse "objectively" doesn't take away from the trauma of a "minor" incident in a happier life.

Of course, the objectively worse suffering in the 3rd world should be dealt with as a higher priority. But this doesn't mean that, given a choice of spending a bit of resources and attention on relief from such "minor" evils (at a low enough alternative cost), we should tell their victims: "Stop whining, we don't care."

If we stop aspiring to treat every individual according to our ideals - as sacred, an end in themselves - then there's no Schelling point to stop at; we might as well come to some absurd hedonic utilitarianism, painting smiles on souls, or overwriting people's brains with a simple utility function, or such! Did you, perchance, choose specks on torture vs. specks? If you did, please think and reflect hard before discounting "minor" oppression.