Assuming that all he did was show up, read his book, and then leave rather than show up and go out of his way to harass people (which he very well may have done when the camera was off of him; in this hypothetical, I’m asking about strictly just showing up to read and then leave, though)

Edit: there is certainly a lot of sides to this. Personally, I think it may be in bad taste but was done out of appreciation for the character instead of trying to insult black people. However, I completely understand why people would think it is wrong. I posted this mostly to get a variety of opinions because I think this could be a very grey situation and works completely of personal world views.

Edit 2: After more contemplation and discussion with users, I think my stance has changed a bit. I think the woman’s actions are amoral because of intent but it would be hard to accept that kind of action on a macro scale. She might have had good intentions but it opens the door for bad actors to get away with doing blackface in the name of “cosplay accuracy” which becomes real problematic it. She probably shouldn’t have done this and the action unintentionally becomes immoral when you think with modern discourse.

Btw not my screenshot, I got it from here https://x.com/idkwahatimdoing/status/2098400039131344988

Edit: I don't think I was clear enough, I'm referring to the scenario and the man's reaction to the answer.

I keep doing this, it's very hot outside and I have to spend a lot of time in the sun or in the car that was parked in the sun prior so I'm very thirsty by the time I get the opportunity to go to a shop. The lines can be long at the cashier's desk so I just sip the drink while waiting. I don't feel ashamed as I consider it basically mine at the point already. However an old lady scolded me to day while I was waiting in this line telling me I should not be driving something I have not bought yet, saying it's very inappropriate and that I should be ashamed. Am I wrong for doing this, is this immoral?

(Censored for privacy)

How does the biblical concept of Hell make sense?

How does it make sense for you to suffer infinite punishment for mistakes committed during a finite lifetime? There’s no way that can be considered fair.

Literally, it doesn’t make sense, and it’s also extremely cruel.

Seriously, how is that justice? You’re going to spend an infinite amount of time suffering for mistakes you made during a finite lifetime. How does that work?

As the main protagonist of R. Scott Bakker's The Second Apocalypse, there are solid arguments to be made for him being either Pure Evil, Near Pure Evil, or Inconsistently Heinous.

For those unfamiliar with TSA (which I assume is everyone on this sub), Kellhus is basically Aryan, god-king Jesus with psychic powers who conquers much of the setting to become strong enough to overthrow the gods.

The thing about him is that, as a Dûnyain (basically a biological supercomputer operating entirely on logic), he is completely devoid of empathy and humanity, being completely single-minded when pursuing his goals, regardless of the suffering and costs. Virtually all relationships he forms are transactional and ultimately one-sided. Because of this, Kellhus genuinely gives Fang Yuan a run for his money in how ruthless and cold-blooded he can be.

In fact, despite TSA being grimdark enough to make Warhammer 40K look like Fairy Tail, the things Kellhus does (from raping and mentally breaking his most devoted follower to committing genocide) make him stand out as one of the setting's biggest bastards.

The biggest potential redeeming quality he has is his extremism: the desire to save humanity from predetermined damnation. Since virtually all of his worst atrocities were committed in service of this goal, it could be reasoned that Kellhus is a shoo-in for Inconsistently Heinous.

But from what I understand, Near Pure Evils can be extremists as long as there is some ambiguity to their motives or the narrative downplays their positive intentions. Pure Evil characters who claim to be extremists (like Funny Valentine) can have their intentions called into question, if not outright subverted, by the narrative via factors like pride or hypocrisy.

Unlike fellow literary god-emperors extremists, like Leto II or the Emperor of Mankind, Kellhus strikes me as the kind of guy who wants to save humanity purely for the sake of it. For someone completely devoid of compassion and empathy, having humanity seems more like an obligation than altruism. As a Dûnyain, who seek to attain absolute spiritual autonomy by overcoming all obstacles, what is escaping damnation other than the biggest obstacle?

While he definitely qualifies for Inconsistently Admirable/Conflicting Good, I have found there to be so much ambiguity and philosophical nuance regarding Kellhus' true nature (even after seven novels) that I still can't make an educated guess on how evil he is. Truly, I have not encountered a character like him.