It’s based on the perception of the person who uses the word. For example, I consider the corporate elite to be low-lifes, but they would consider a homeless person a low-life.

Just look at the question posed by ‘lucid interfector’ and you’ll see a real low life there.

Low life is a person with no morals, a thief, a con, that takes advantage of innocent hardworking people. Such as the fake pan handlers we have now, GO GET A JOB!

Or those who show NO respect for life or dignity of others.

If you want a description, then a person who can be labeled a ‘low life’ would be someone who is anti-social, in terms of their activities. Things that ‘normal’ people in society wouldn’t do. These characters are also capable of pushing and encouraging their shady activites on others, especially those who are ‘on the brink’. Low lifes are usually associated with drug-dealing, criminal activity, heavy drinking, chain-smoking, sexual promiscuity, stalking, hacking/spamming/virus-creation in terms of technology, etc. You could also call them the ‘scum of the earth’, if you don’t have a better term.

If you’re looking for a nicer way to describe them you could say “they’re slightly uncultivated” or you might even say uncouth and they’ll get the idea, a euphemism.

Someone who hangs around bars all day, figures out ways to scam people and doesn’t have a real job

Ethically and morally challenged

scum of the Earth. Someone who is shady, lazy, can’t be trusted, in general not very nice.

I say they are a left wing Liberal, that always applies perfectly.

my ex.