The face of evil
by David Atkins
If this statement by Kevin O'Leary doesn't qualify as "evil", I'm not sure what does:
A lot of progressives aren't comofortable speaking in terms of good and evil. It's too judgmental, too moralizing, too tribalistic, too reminiscent of religious doctrine, etc.
But at a certain point this isn't a rational political conversation anymore. It's a moral one.It's in the gut, and it's not subject to debate.
We've moved to a point in history where thankfully having a conversation about whether some races are inherently superior to others isn't tolerated not just because it's wrong, but because it's evil. The conversation doesn't get off the ground because it's repulsive and people know that now in their gut. We don't have conversations about whether it's OK to have sex with prepubescent children because it's repulsive and evil. It's not a topic for debate, and we don't give credible space in the public square to the "having-sex-with-children" crowd. There are areas of potential "debate" where we draw the line and simply say "no, that's wrong, and you're disgusting."
Saying that it's wonderful for the world's richest 85 people to have more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poorest, because it encourages them to work harder, is an abomination. It is evil. It is beyond the point of debate, and moves instead to gut convictions about pure right and wrong.
And that's OK. It's OK to feel and express that moral revulsion. It's what keeps us human. The only problem is that we haven't yet evolved in society yet to the point where Kevin O'Leary feels the same weight of public scorn and shame as a Neo-Nazi or a member of NAMBLA.
.