I'm largely staying out of this debate specifically, but making distinctions into evil are important when it comes to defining villains. Someone like Lex Luthor and someone like Whitehall could be equally evil and maybe have a pissing contest to see who's wrought more damage, but one is way more rooted in historical trauma than the other, giving more context and thus believability. It's also why Magneto's appeal and longevity grew once his Auschwitz origin was established -- Kang the Conqueror has, numerically speaking, done far more damage than Magneto at his most evil, but Magneto resonates much more for the X-Men because of context, and why Kang's fought most heavyweights but fought the X-Men the least. The Joker and Red Skull are equally demented in their own ways but the Joker rebelled against Red Skull because his brand of evil was anti-American -- sure, it's a non-canonical crossover, but it illustrates the point that not all forms of evil are created equal, and that different types of evil require different approaches, even if all other things are factored equally.
Agents of SHIELD has been doing that these past few episodes with current events. It's not just to draw parallels and take swipes at the current administration, since you don't add those types of comments out of the blue without some sort of real-world impact motivating the writing. It provides a context to which the viewers can connect with. Even on a smaller scale, Radcliffe was selfishly evil, but he was horrified when he realized that AIDA's motives (and the Superior, for that matter) were different than his, even though their goals were mostly aligned, and it helped turn Radcliffe more sympathetic as a result.