>>106947That's a very surface level analysis.
That which certain groups deem bad other groups may deem to be good, depending on the values they stand for. Submissiveness versus assertiveness, conformism versus contrarianism, altruism versus selfishness, following the rules versus breaking them. Traditional hegemonic discourse will tell you that in each case the former is preferrable, but those against said discourse will often go for the opposite. However, because it's hegemonic it has the power to impose the labels of one group of qualities as good, and another as bad, thus people on the opposing camp will end up using the two words not to refer to its moral value, which they disagree on, but to the set of characteristics they cover, which they
can agree on.
It's not too unlike the cases where a negative word gain an opposite positive meaning, such as "sick" developing into a synonym of "awesome" when used as slang by a certain group of people in a certain context. Further examination yields the conclusion that having neither malaria nor tuberculosis fits this description, however. Same goes for "wicked", or "yabai". The word "badass" itself is derived off of "bad", but, who would say that being badass is a bad thing? No one, that's who. And even people who hate the cold use "cool" as praise.
Pop bands from either side of Greenwich commonly have a designated "bad" boy or girl to appeal to a certain demographic looking out for these traits. They are
situationally favorable because in some instances something like rebelliousness will be troublesome, while in others it may be outright necessary. The break from convention bad girls (even "bad bitches") represent is in fact often good. Context matters.
>>106948Excellent.