Smart Evil vs Stupid Evil
Mesa, Arizona, my hometown, was the site of the first hate-inspired murder after 9/11. Frank Roque killed Balbir Sodhi because he was angry at Muslims. The problem is that Balbir Sodhi was not a muslim, he was a Sikh. Sikhs and Muslims have been traditionally been enemies, India/Pakistan tensions being one example. Even if you accept that Muslims ought to be murdered in revenge for 9/11, Frank Roque shot a member of his own team.
I hope I'm not making too controversial a statement by saying that evil bothers me. Whether or not they know that what they're doing is evil, the bad things that people do bother me. But a subset of evil is what I call "stupid evil". People who do evil things that undermine their own goals.
Osama Bin Laden is smart evil. He wanted to get Americans out of Saudi Arabia and bring attention to radical islam. 9/11 (that's the evil action) accomplished these goals: some of the original actors have been captured or killed, but according to US intelligence reports groups calling themselves "Al Qaeda", the terror attacks they launch, and the Americans they injure are more numerous than ever. Osama set a goal and he accomplished it by evil means. That's smart evil.
George Bush is stupid evil. He wanted to defeat increase American power abroad and weaken global Islamic extremism. So he legalized torture and unilaterally invaded Iraq (those are the evil actions) and set these goals back decades. George set a goal and he worked against it by evil means. That's stupid evil.
Which is worse: smart evil or stupid evil? I can understand why smart evil might seem worse: if you must deal with an adversary it's preferable to have a bumbling adversary who might shoot himself in the foot rather than a competent adversary who can injure you. But for some reason stupid evil has always bothered me more. Even when it's someone doing something like Frank Roque doing something that I oppose, I experience an additional level of frustration when I realize that it isn't even helping the guy doing it. "Why did you do that? Even a totally evil sonofabitch should have known not to do that."
Poll Smart Evil vs Stupid Evil
I hope I'm not making too controversial a statement by saying that evil bothers me. Whether or not they know that what they're doing is evil, the bad things that people do bother me. But a subset of evil is what I call "stupid evil". People who do evil things that undermine their own goals.
Osama Bin Laden is smart evil. He wanted to get Americans out of Saudi Arabia and bring attention to radical islam. 9/11 (that's the evil action) accomplished these goals: some of the original actors have been captured or killed, but according to US intelligence reports groups calling themselves "Al Qaeda", the terror attacks they launch, and the Americans they injure are more numerous than ever. Osama set a goal and he accomplished it by evil means. That's smart evil.
George Bush is stupid evil. He wanted to defeat increase American power abroad and weaken global Islamic extremism. So he legalized torture and unilaterally invaded Iraq (those are the evil actions) and set these goals back decades. George set a goal and he worked against it by evil means. That's stupid evil.
Which is worse: smart evil or stupid evil? I can understand why smart evil might seem worse: if you must deal with an adversary it's preferable to have a bumbling adversary who might shoot himself in the foot rather than a competent adversary who can injure you. But for some reason stupid evil has always bothered me more. Even when it's someone doing something like Frank Roque doing something that I oppose, I experience an additional level of frustration when I realize that it isn't even helping the guy doing it. "Why did you do that? Even a totally evil sonofabitch should have known not to do that."
Poll Smart Evil vs Stupid Evil