GA had a debate with a friend over the words 'ruthless' and evil'. He found my use of the word 'evil' to describe persons and their conduct to be over-the-top, telling me that 'ruthless' was the correct descriptive.
Here's the Dictionary.com definition of ruthless:
without pity or compassion; cruel; merciless.Oh, come on... isn't all that "cruel" and "merciless" stuff kinda evil?
I bring that up because I think the distinction between the two provides cover for those enterprises that cooperate with ruthless politicians in exchange for a revenue stream- technically not blood money, since nobody's died. But if you consider a person's reputation something which can be pounded and left to languish bloodied online perhaps to never recover- and the beating was administered by an enterprise receiving ad revenue from the 'ruthless' politician, well...
Why isn't that evil?
 |
| They didn't call him Dr. Ruthless. |
What about a politician whose intellectually compromised paid 'henchman' lurks at a public school playground, yells at a parent in the presence of her 5 year-old and follows them into a pizzeria to sit and stare from feet away, having purchased no food? Note the parent is a School Board member opposed by this politician.
Simply ruthless?
Why isn't that evil?
What about a politician who dispatches the same intellectually compromised henchman to file criminal complaints against prominent reformers and elected officials, who dispatches a personal videographer to stalk reform officials, to lurk at their homes, follow them on the street...
Simply ruthless?
Or...
My sense of the two words is that "evil" implies not only doing bad stuff, but doing it from a standpoint of immorality, in other words from the desire to do harm. "Ruthless" implies doing bad stuff with an utter disregard of the consequences for others - thus amoral rather than immoral. Now, one could philosophically claim that amorality is a form of immorality...
ReplyDeleteThanks, HD.
DeleteIn that case, I'm sticking with 'evil' as my assessment.
I may have left out the part of being evil of having the capacity to convincingly put your pinky to your lips while raising an eyebrow and scowling. But I think she COULD do that, so it's a moot point.
DeleteI think Beth is a bad person. Is she evil? Probably. I mean, she's definitely not interested in what the consequences of her actions (allegedly paying thugs like Callichio) are to those who suffer because of those actions. She has no problem twisting the truth. She has no problem trying to ruin someone's reputation. She loves to play the victim. She is, in my opinion, the very definition of an evil bitch. I look forward to her political demise.
ReplyDeleteI have no argument with your assessment of Beth Mason's characteristics, but (if you accept my definitions of "evil" and "ruthless" - and some dictionary work appears to confirm that) that makes Mason ruthless rather than evil, because she is "not interesting in ... the consequences of her actions." If she's evil, then she is (again, my definition) acting with the intent to hurt others rather than simply gain her own ends. Said another way calling her evil means one of her goals, a primary or the primary goal in fact, is to cause harm.
DeleteI want to add, I would be thrilled if she and her hubby immediately vacated Hoboken and the Hoboken political scene bodily and monetarily!
ReplyDelete