A writer named Paul Pillar described Jeremy Corbyn as a “feckless left-winger”, and a lot of people think that Boris Johnson is too reckless to be Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I just realized that “feckless” and “reckless” are different and the difference is just one letter. While I feel that Boris Johnson is a reckless person, I don’t know if Jeremy Corbyn is feckless or not. I am interested in the context where the two words are used. Which word is more favored by those who want to criticize their antagonists? To you, which word causes more damage?
I prefer to be called “feckless” rather than to be called “reckless”.
When I saw the thread title, I was going to come in to make a joke that the word “feckless” is only used by american republicans trying to make fun of Obama. I come into the thread, and it turns out that is exactly where you heard the word.
I would honestly not worry about “feckless” unless you want to blog about american right wing politics. For example, here is a clip where our dumbass governor is calling obama “feckless” for not trying to start world war three by attacking russia. 15 1216 Chris Christie Obama is a Feckless Weakling - YouTube
reckless, means you are careless: acting or something risky without being aware of the danger.
feckless is a fancy way of saying someone is weak or cowardly.
The original meaning of feckless was “effect-less” i.e. ineffective. I think of someone who is feckless as do-less and lazy. Someone who tries to get away with doing as little (work) as possible. Shiftless.
I think of someone who is reckless as lacking any restraint or judgement. Taking undue risks (reckless in their actions) or having no filter (reckless with their words). Someone who doesn’t stop to consider the consequences of their actions or words.
I don’t think the use of either word, in and of itself, would “cause more damage” to the person being described, but I think of feckless as the more disparaging of the two.