Something may be described as flagrant if it is conspicuously bad—that is, too bad to be ignored.

// In a flagrant violation of the family's code of ethics, someone finished the ice cream and left the empty container in the freezer.

See the entry >

"'It wasn't such a brilliant thought to sit on an artwork,' Vanessa Carlon, the museum's director, tells the New York Times' Claire Moses. Carlon says the incident highlights just how far people will go to get a good photo, as well as their flagrant lack of accountability. 'These two people decided to escape,' she adds. 'That was the behavior that really offended us.'" — Sonja Anderson, Smithsonian Magazine, 20 June 2025

A flagrant foul in sports involves no flame or literal heat—it's just too conspicuously bad for referees to ignore—but the roots of flagrant are hot, hot, hot. In Latin, flagrāre means "to burn," and flagrans means "flaming" or "fiery" (both carry meanings relating to literal flames as well as the figurative flames of passion). When it was first used in the 16th century, flagrant had the same "flaming, fiery" meaning as flagrans, but by the 18th century it had acquired its current meaning of “conspicuously bad or offensive.” (Another flagrāre descendant in English, conflagration, retained its "fiery" meaning.) Some usage experts warn against using flagrant and blatant interchangeably. While both words apply to noticeable lapses, they are not true synonyms. Blatant (likely from a Latin word meaning “to chatter”) typically describes a person, action, or thing that attracts disapproving attention (e.g., "a blatant grammatical error"), while flagrant carries a heavier connotation of offense often for violated morality (e.g., "flagrant abuse of public office").