I’d argue it depends on how you use it. Calling Bezos a blood-sucking vampire of a man that lives more the more he feasts on others is pretty insulting, I’d say.
It should be, but vampires are alluring which belies their evil. That’s the cautionary part of the fiction.
Is Bezos a soulless ghoul cannibalizing the festering, necrotic wound of poverty which he grows larger every day? Yes, and in no way can that be conflated to being sexy.
Sycophant, rogue, reactionary, deeply userious, ghoul, vampire, all seem to be pretty good.
Ghoul is the only really good one in the list. Its a generic feind thats in no way cool.
Rogues and vampires are cool.
Sycophant is good when someone’s being a sycophant. But you can be independently ghoulish.
I’d argue it depends on how you use it. Calling Bezos a blood-sucking vampire of a man that lives more the more he feasts on others is pretty insulting, I’d say.
It should be, but vampires are alluring which belies their evil. That’s the cautionary part of the fiction.
Is Bezos a soulless ghoul cannibalizing the festering, necrotic wound of poverty which he grows larger every day? Yes, and in no way can that be conflated to being sexy.
Sure, I like that more, but vampire can have its uses for variety’s sake. Gotta be creative.