So there was intentionality in my original thought after all, thus explaining why villainy felt right
But it was pertaining to intentional LACK of action & I also wanted to articulate that the harm itself is never intended, despite the awareness of the neglect
But again,I was just messing with words

As I review what I wrote I think I originally used "unintentional" to reflect that they don't actually mean harm but then used "villainous" to articulate just how harmful they are by chronically & intentionally neglecting things that hurt others a lot because they don't think it should matter

But I hear you that basically everyone views villainy as only being something done with intent. I guess I just like to reinterpret language sometimes as I grow and learn about humanity

I guess I discounted criminality as part of the definition because the law hasnt ever been a great measure of morality or rightness from what I've seen
So focusing more on the wickedness aspect, I just saw it as someone who wasn't intentionally harmful but likewise also wasnt intentionally unharmful

So, though some of the definitions kinda loop back on each other, either way, none of it actually suggests intent (I.e. decisions), so much as impact.

All of those definitions can be applied to someone being negligent. Which, imo, is in many ways, villainy without intent

Using dictionary definitions:
Villainy is "relating to, constituting, or guilty of wicked or criminal behavior" or "extremely bad or unpleasant"
Wicked is "evil or morally wrong" or "playfully mischievous"
Evil is "profoundly immoral & wicked"
Mischievous is "causing trouble in a playful way"

I suppose that is the definition of bravery, after all...

But it hurts, and I'm scared 😔