Discussion Main / ObliviouslyEvil

I think several examples of Obliviously Evil, at least on separate pages, stretch the term “oblivious” to the point that “willfully oblivious” would fit better which in turn is not obliviousness, but rather delusional which would not be this trope.

If Obliviously Evil is something that a Complete Monster can never be, then why do we have examples like Shou Tucker and Judge Claude Frollo?

Removed the bold part of this:

• The assassin Jonathan Teatime from the Discworld novel Hogfather does not seem to entirely understand that his actions (and he himself) are evil. As Susan Sto-Helit says when confronting him, "You were the little boy who didn't know the difference between throwing a stone at a cat and setting a cat on fire." Teatime is only an apprentice assassin. Not because he can't perform well, but because he is known within the Assasssin's Guild for lack of elegance on his assignments, which in his case means not only killing the target but nailing the target's head to the wall and killing his family, servants, and household pets on the way out for fun. On the other hand, he expresses a desire for friends, and seems to very sincerely wish to please his Guildmaster. As it is implied that he killed his own parents as a small child, Teatime may simply have been born without empathy and never developed the moral sense to understand what was wrong with his actions. In fact, he sometimes seems confused about why he is not liked by his companions.

I'm not sure it's so. He's a sociopath, and I think says "I want to be your friend" not in an effort to make friends but as part of his efforts to manipulate people into doing what he wants. He wants to please his Guildmaster because that's his job, he doesn't get a warm fuzzy feeling from it.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus Hide / Show Replies

That line about the Sexisevilandiamhorny felt out of place. I mean wouldn't that at best be an unapologetic excuse since the presumed character would understand that he 'is' assaulting someone which is by nature a bad thing to do. Switching blame by itself means that they understand the action is bad.

Can we at least add in mental disorders where the person doesn't honestly understand other people. Like a little kid who doesn't realize that he can hurt other people, or someone with mental disabilites that makes them child like?

Should a link be included for "Moral Guardians" on the page? It seems like a good fit to me.

Is the image not a spoiler?

A quote from a work that I like, summing up my personality

"This is particularly sobering in the case where the victims are endangered species. In the case of dogs, a dog could kill a severely endangered animal like a kiwi, and it'd be standing there wagging its tail. Tragic."

Is this not only tragic because of humanity's weird obsession with keeping as many species alive as possible? The bird he kills is no different from any other, yet 'somehow' it's now more Evil. I dislike human traits like this.

Natter. Natter. [[Friends Word's lost all meaning.]] Links are hard it seems.

Removed this bit:

• Even many that were out for blood weren't exactly evil; they merely felt that the Allies had crossed the Moral Event Horizon during the last war(Britain had a blockade credited with killing nearly a million German civilians, which was kept in place for far longer than necessary) and with the Treaty of Versailles(which was designed to specifically cripple Germany, with some feeling WWII was inevitable because it didn't go far enough, a sentiment that culminated in a plan to deindustrialize Germany).

Now really, harsh terms on a treaty is an excuse for genocide? And the 'plan to deindustrialize' bit clinches it. This is classic neo-Nazi apologism. The plan in question, the Morgenthau plan, was dropped almost as soon as it was brought up. In historical forums, it is only Nazi apologists which use this particular 'The Allies made us do it' logic, so I scrapped it from this article.

Even if it is not meant by the author as such, it is so volatile that the rule of cautious editing should have prevented them posting it.

Hide / Show Replies