How Important Is Character To You?

BussyPhilipps

Worshipped Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
5,647
Media
0
Likes
12,037
Points
183
Location
Fucking (Upper Austria, Austria)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Which do you value more in a candidate, their character or their (proposed) policies? And would you still vote for someone if you liked their policies, but you thought they were a person of poor or questionable character?

For me, I always consider the character of the candidates before their policies/platform. If I think a candidate is of poor or questionable character, I won’t vote for them, unless their opponent has even worse character. After considering character, then I consider policies.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well, once a candidate takes policy positions that I am in favor of, it is necessary that I evaluate how reliable those positions are. If a candidate makes campaign promises, but I judge those promises to be most likely unrealistic or insincere, then it won't matter to me how much they sound like good policies.

Beyond direct bearing on policy I no longer care much about character in politicians, though. Being a vicious, classist bloodsucker who lacks true affections for the country is the norm as far as I can tell, and most other differences of character seem not especially relevant in light of that baseline. Generally, all I am concerned with in election of politicians is that they will advance my interests; I choose to support whomever seems he/she would do the most to put me in a better position by the end of the elected term than before. Due to the character of the Trump presidency there has recently been a fixation on the notion of "decency", and honestly I couldn't care less about that. I wouldn't hesitate in deciding in favor of a sleaze whom I believe would deliver on infrastructural restoration, single-payer healthcare, livable wages, greater investment in public education, and reform of the tax code, if the alternative were a decent and earnest libertarian.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,359
Media
2
Likes
10,358
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Policy is more important.

Loathsome as he is if Trump had been the Democratic candidate for president pushing the Democratic platform in the last two elections I would have voted for him. Many of the record 74 million on the center-right who voted for him did so for the same reason--policy not character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: malakos

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't see it as either/or; a person's character affects how sincere and committed they are about their policies.

That said, people will always let you down, to one extent or another. So I put more trust in policies than in people, and more in principles than in policies.
 

BussyPhilipps

Worshipped Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
5,647
Media
0
Likes
12,037
Points
183
Location
Fucking (Upper Austria, Austria)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Policy is more important.

Loathsome as he is if Trump had been the Democratic candidate for president pushing the Democratic platform in the last two elections I would have voted for him. Many of the record 74 million on the center-right who voted for him did so for the same reason--policy not character.
Why would you vote for someone who is a pathological liar with no morals whatsoever just because they push an agenda you like? That’s very damaging to democracy and trust in the system.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,359
Media
2
Likes
10,358
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Why would you vote for someone who is a pathological liar with no morals whatsoever just because they push an agenda you like? That’s very damaging to democracy and trust in the system.

lol... well there are plenty of liars--pathological and otherwise--across the political spectrum who have displayed questionable morals in their personal and professional lives. Nor is there a shortage of narcissism and megalomania among them though Trump takes the cake in that regard.

I've had to hold my nose while voting for many Democratic candidates over the decades but it's better than vomiting to vote for Republicans.

IMO what's dangerous to democracy in our republic is the cult of personality which forms around political leaders no matter where they are on the political spectrum. Millions are blinded by their love of a leader.

What do I love? The progressive policies of the left taking us always forward and upward not the regressive policies of the right pushing us always backwards to the past.
 

BussyPhilipps

Worshipped Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
5,647
Media
0
Likes
12,037
Points
183
Location
Fucking (Upper Austria, Austria)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
What if the candidate openly bullies people, has a history of plagiarism, or is a pathological liar and fraud who has lied and cheated their way through life by claiming to have a degree or job they never had? Would you still vote for them just because you like their proposed policies, even if there are other candidates who are only somewhat less progressive?
 

BussyPhilipps

Worshipped Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
5,647
Media
0
Likes
12,037
Points
183
Location
Fucking (Upper Austria, Austria)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, once a candidate takes policy positions that I am in favor of, it is necessary that I evaluate how reliable those positions are. If a candidate makes campaign promises, but I judge those promises to be most likely unrealistic or insincere, then it won't matter to me how much they sound like good policies.

Beyond direct bearing on policy I no longer care much about character in politicians, though. Being a vicious, classist bloodsucker who lacks true affections for the country is the norm as far as I can tell, and most other differences of character seem not especially relevant in light of that baseline. Generally, all I am concerned with in election of politicians is that they will advance my interests; I choose to support whomever seems he/she would do the most to put me in a better position by the end of the elected term than before. Due to the character of the Trump presidency there has recently been a fixation on the notion of "decency", and honestly I couldn't care less about that. I wouldn't hesitate in deciding in favor of a sleaze whom I believe would deliver on infrastructural restoration, single-payer healthcare, livable wages, greater investment in public education, and reform of the tax code, if the alternative were a decent and earnest libertarian.
So if a candidate whose policies you like openly bullies and treats other people like shit, you would still vote for them? What if there were only some differences in the proposed policies of their opponent(s), like if they were somewhat more moderate?

Also, what would you say to someone like me who was bullied so terribly in middle school that I had to change schools, and thus was devastated when a candidate was able to bully their way to the White House and become the most powerful person in the world? The last four years have been awful for my mental health because they have shown that someone can treat other people like shit and not only become the most powerful person in the world, but almost half the country will overlook their behavior or even support it, and they will face little to no repercussions because they’re enabled by a bunch of sycophants. Growing up most people told me that the bullies wouldn’t win in life, that their behavior would eventually catch up to them. The last four years flies in the face of all of that. Would you say that I’m a snowflake and that the affects the last four years have had on my mental health are my problem and my problem alone?

So yes, I think decency is important. If we don’t treat each other with decency, then we don’t live in a civilized society. And our politicians should be setting a good example for how to treat other people, because people look to their example. When the president or other elected officials engage in bullying or bigotry, regular people feel enabled to do the same because it tells them that it’s ok. Eventually such behavior because a cultural norm. How are parents supposed to convince their kids that bullying and poor sportsmanship are wrong when the kids see the most powerful person in the country and the world constantly demeaning and making fun of people, as well as being unwilling to concede an election almost two months after it happened?
 

BussyPhilipps

Worshipped Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
5,647
Media
0
Likes
12,037
Points
183
Location
Fucking (Upper Austria, Austria)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, once a candidate takes policy positions that I am in favor of, it is necessary that I evaluate how reliable those positions are. If a candidate makes campaign promises, but I judge those promises to be most likely unrealistic or insincere, then it won't matter to me how much they sound like good policies.

Beyond direct bearing on policy I no longer care much about character in politicians, though. Being a vicious, classist bloodsucker who lacks true affections for the country is the norm as far as I can tell, and most other differences of character seem not especially relevant in light of that baseline. Generally, all I am concerned with in election of politicians is that they will advance my interests; I choose to support whomever seems he/she would do the most to put me in a better position by the end of the elected term than before. Due to the character of the Trump presidency there has recently been a fixation on the notion of "decency", and honestly I couldn't care less about that. I wouldn't hesitate in deciding in favor of a sleaze whom I believe would deliver on infrastructural restoration, single-payer healthcare, livable wages, greater investment in public education, and reform of the tax code, if the alternative were a decent and earnest libertarian.
Also, aren’t libertarians usually of poor character? I mean, the libertarian philosophy is pretty selfish to begin with. And honestly, you of all people being opposed to a libertarian is pretty ironic considering you posted the following in the coronavirus thread:

6C23023B-524A-4C22-B762-A9AC2DB21921.png


Isn’t that as Libertarian and selfish as you can get? You literally said you wouldn’t beat yourself up if your behavior contributed to the spread of the virus and strangers died as a result. You also said you’re against lockdowns, even though without them hundreds of thousands of more people would have died.

Most of your posts center around you and what you think would be best for you. You’re always “Me, me, me!” You’re even against getting a COVID-19 vaccine to help us achieve herd immunity and protect those who can’t get a vaccine due to vulnerable immune systems. How is that so different from being a Libertarian who doesn’t want the government intervening in their life so they can do whatever the hell they want?

I guess you support progressive or liberal policies as long as they benefit you, but if they don’t benefit you, you couldn’t care less???
 

Player_01

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Posts
1,474
Media
0
Likes
8,287
Points
408
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think it depends on just how bad of character we are talking about and what they are up against. Trump v Hilary was two very hated candidates so that was easy to vote based on policy (I chose Hilary). But I would also think a vote for Biden over Trump would have been obvious to everyone and it apparently wasn't obvious to everyone :p

Thankfully enough voted Biden but like almost 70 million thought they could look past Trump's character and to policy, or whatever he calls his policy.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So if a candidate whose policies you like openly bullies and treats other people like shit, you would still vote for them? What if there were only some differences in the proposed policies of their opponent(s), like if they were somewhat more moderate?

Yeah. And to be frank, severe assertiveness/aggression and knowing how to take damaging shots at others are essential to being an effective politician, whether that manifests in an overt bully persona or not. Given that I think aggression and some intimidation are called for in the political sphere, of course I wouldn't opt for someone a bit more moderate because he/she presents as more congenial.

Also, what would you say to someone like me who was bullied so terribly in middle school that I had to change schools, and thus was devastated when a candidate was able to bully their way to the White House and become the most powerful person in the world? The last four years have been awful for my mental health because they have shown that someone can treat other people like shit and not only become the most powerful person in the world, but almost half the country will overlook their behavior or even support it, and they will face little to no repercussions because they’re enabled by a bunch of sycophants. Growing up most people told me that the bullies wouldn’t win in life, that their behavior would eventually catch up to them. The last four years flies in the face of all of that. Would you say that I’m a snowflake and that the affects the last four years have had on my mental health are my problem and my problem alone?

Of course the damage to your mental health is your problem. Whose else would it be? The anguish occurs in your head, and the experience of it is private to you. How could it be anyone else's problem in the same sense? I'm experiencing considerable anxiety over a paper I need to finish in the next few days that I'm struggling to finish off well. I'm the only one who experiences that anxiety. No one else can suffer that anxiety. How could it be anyone's problem but my own?

But I imagine part of what you want to get at is causation and laying blame somewhere. If disparagement, intimidation, and cruelty were not appropriate to the political sphere, then you might have grounds for complaining about a bully of a political leader causing you anguish. As you know by now, I disagree with that view of the political. Does that mean I think that your suffering is strictly your own fault? No. It sounds like you've been sold a bill of goods in a number of respects. The notion that bullies don't win is laughable. I'm sorry that those you were in the care of were so unkind as to inculcate that notion in you. And...

So yes, I think decency is important. If we don’t treat each other with decency, then we don’t live in a civilized society.

I'm also sorry that you were sold this kind of fantastical nonsense regarding society. Society is basically about finding a balance between power groups. That normally involves a considerable amount of struggle and conflict, and victors forcing concessions on those they have defeated. The human will is naturally drawn toward extension of its abilities and dominion; to suppose that we could realize a society where everyone gets along, and is nice and considerate to each other, is a pipe dream. The only context where such a dynamic would appear (I'm not saying this is even possible, it's just the only scenario where it could conceivably make sense for society to be this way) would be an extremely dystopian one, perhaps in the vein of Brave New World. If the masses were getting along and being universally congenial and nice to each other, it would most likely be because they had been psychically pacified by an exceptionally powerful and clever ruling class. If that is the sort of society you want, all I can say is that our fundamental values are very much at odds with each other.

And our politicians should be setting a good example for how to treat other people, because people look to their example.

To an extent, this is true. But I wouldn't put it in the top 10 most important functions of a political leader. I also wouldn't grant you that the right way to treat other people is always nicely, civilly, and courteously.

When the president or other elected officials engage in bullying or bigotry, regular people feel enabled to do the same because it tells them that it’s ok. Eventually such behavior because a cultural norm.

Aggression, seeking power, and even cruelty are natural human impulses. They are not going to be done away with by a few generations of politicians who put on a good show of civility and congeniality for the masses. What you have witnessed in middle America the past few years was by no means created by any of our leaders. It was there all along. Certain political factors catalyzed a reawakening of these impulses. But if these factors had not been present, there would have been some other catalyst in the near future. It's also entirely possible that if these impulses had been suppressed longer that their rousing would have been much more violent. So please, stop this idealizing of civility, decency, kindness, and courteousness, and take a more careful and honest look at humanity and how it works.

How are parents supposed to convince their kids that bullying and poor sportsmanship are wrong when the kids see the most powerful person in the country and the world constantly demeaning and making fun of people, as well as being unwilling to concede an election almost two months after it happened?

The chief responsibility of parents is to teach their children what they need to know to thrive. Teaching one's children moral absolutes, rather than discernment of context and relative relevance of values, provides them nothing useful to help them thrive, and if anything may sometimes prove an obstacle in the child coming to terms with what he/she needs to do to increase his/her wellbeing.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I guess you support progressive or liberal policies as long as they benefit you, but if they don’t benefit you, you couldn’t care less???

I'll start with this, since it puts some of the most basic concepts on the table for further elaboration.

I don't know that I support any liberal policies; there may be a few at the most that I'm lukewarm/ambivalent about. But generally I conceive of myself as roughly the opposite of a liberal.

If by "progressive" you mean policies that are designed to support the poor, working class, and otherwise disadvantaged, I'm economically far-left, and so I do support most of what counts as economically progressive policy (social is a different story), while generally wishing for a considerably more extreme version than what is offered. For example, a public healthcare option is quite a ways short of what I would like to see.

Do I only support progressive policies when they benefit me? I think strictly speaking there is some truth to that. Philosophically I'm of the view that individual social attitudes are formed in the context of discernment of what is beneficial to the survival and thriving of the individual, albeit in a way that we mostly aren't conscious of. So if I have come to care about certain family members and friends, at root it is (often unconsciously) because I have recognized these individuals as playing a role in my own thriving.

But I'll set that aside because that's really more analysis of underlying causes of attitudes and not of immediate political import. What is important is the fact that there are people I care about, and am invested in their doing well. I'm also aware of how interrelated my situation is and tied up in the success or failure of those I'm connected to. So, I know that often it is the case that what benefits my community will somewhere down the line benefit me, even if it isn't of direct benefit to me. Also, more broadly speaking I don't see politics through the scarcity lens that fiscal conservatives are so attached to, so I tend to be amenable to economically progressive policies even if it it's not immediately apparent how they would be even indirectly related to my affairs. So in this sense, the answer to your question is effectively a fairly solid "No."

Also, aren’t libertarians usually of poor character? I mean, the libertarian philosophy is pretty selfish to begin with.

In its most authentic theoretical form, libertarianism is just as much about determining the sort of political arrangement that would best ensure the welfare of the members of a society.

I happen to think their theory is drastically wrong, but to sincerely claim it's all just about selfishness is pretty superficial and intellectually uncharitable.

And honestly, you of all people being opposed to a libertarian is pretty ironic considering you posted the following in the coronavirus thread:

View attachment 27164701

Isn’t that as Libertarian...

No. Nothing of what I said has anything to do with opposing government interventions on the assumption that they are inherently damaging to the exercise of individual liberty. I'm not even really concerned in the first place with individual liberty like a libertarian is.

and selfish as you can get?

I would also say that this is quite wrong, but it's beyond the scope of questioning me about my politics now, and I don't care to indulge your scrutinizing of my character.

Most of your posts center around you and what you think would be best for you. You’re always “Me, me, me!”

I don't think this is technically true, but if you mean that some of my social and political commentary prioritizes individuals seeking out what contributes to their thriving, that much I recognize as true. I think self-serving motivations lie at the root of all of our attitudes and choices. Unfortunately we often vainly delude ourselves into thinking that we can and ought to act truly selflessly; this ideology often leads to an unhealthy suppression of our natural inclinations to seek out what is best for us. Why do you point this out? Is there a problem?

You’re even against getting a COVID-19 vaccine to help us achieve herd immunity and protect those who can’t get a vaccine due to vulnerable immune systems. How is that so different from being a Libertarian who doesn’t want the government intervening in their life so they can do whatever the hell they want?

I never said it was a problem for the government to enforce severe regulations for disease control. Libertarians object to government interventions because they see them as infringing upon individual liberties. As I said, that's not something I'm concerned about. I'm entirely supportive the government enacting and enforcing such policies, when they are actually beneficial to society overall (this is not necessarily the same as what will keep a minority of at risk populations from having to practice extreme caution to keep themselves safe).

I disagree with the continuation of lockdowns in this case because I think they are doing more significant and lasting damage to the average American than the coronavirus even has any potential to. Most of us are getting screwed by this situation, while, if you've looked at recent corporate earnings, the wealthy are sitting pretty. To sacrifice the welfare of most Americans so that the rich can get richer and a slim minority of the population can live a few years longer doesn't seem like good policy to me. It seems motivated by a naive idea of "We have to keep as many alive for as long as we can because that's the righteous, caring thing to do!" Possibly noble (if I'm being generous), but putting everything on hold to try to keep every last person safe is less effective (and honest) than one might suppose, and it puts at risk many more things that are likely more important.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
No they're not.

Oh come now. Human behavior and culture throughout our whole history has been replete with taking in and enjoying the sufferings of others. It doesn't characterize absolutely everything that we do, but it is quite ubiquitous, and pervades many areas of life less obvious than torturing puppies, say. We enjoy a bit of cruelty here and there, whether it be physical or emotional, immediate or vicarious, direct or indirect, other-directed or even self-directed, and we are driven by this fascination with suffering. Participating in cruelties gives us a sense of empowerment. Hell, even the feeling of moral outrage people often experience in response to taking in cruelties is related to this impulse.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Oh come now. Human behavior and culture throughout our whole history has been replete with taking in and enjoying the sufferings of others. It doesn't characterize absolutely everything that we do, but it is quite ubiquitous, and pervades many areas of life less obvious than torturing puppies, say. We enjoy a bit of cruelty here and there, whether it be physical or emotional, immediate or vicarious, direct or indirect, other-directed or even self-directed, and we are driven by this fascination with suffering. Participating in cruelties gives us a sense of empowerment. Hell, even the feeling of moral outrage people often experience in response to taking in cruelties is related to this impulse.

And so? Even if what you say is largely true, should we be content to accept cruelty as simply a pervasive, ubiquitous part of life? Or rather work, individually and as a society, to lessen its impact from one generation to the next? If not, what else are we here for?
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Aggression, seeking power, and even cruelty are natural human impulses. They are not going to be done away with by a few generations of politicians who put on a good show of civility and congeniality for the masses. What you have witnessed in middle America the past few years was by no means created by any of our leaders. It was there all along. Certain political factors catalyzed a reawakening of these impulses. But if these factors had not been present, there would have been some other catalyst in the near future. It's also entirely possible that if these impulses had been suppressed longer that their rousing would have been much more violent. So please, stop this idealizing of civility, decency, kindness, and courteousness, and take a more careful and honest look at humanity and how it works.

Sounds pretty sociopathic to me. How many guns do you own?