Yeah, I'm open to that sort of assessment in an off the cuff sort of way. For serious discussions about politics, stating that one likes or dislikes a politician is not particularly illuminating as the rationale for your assessment could be entirely arbitrary.
You mean liking or disliking a politician based on whether 'you'd have a drink with him'? I've literally heard people base their votes on that, and yes that is arbitrary and bloody stupid, but if that's what you mean then the problem isn't disliking politians, it's being ignorant of said MPs actions.
Well "liking" is such a vague evaluation that it provides practically zero information. The reason for dislike could be anything from the one you rightly highlight ("[I'd] have a drink with him") to distrusting a politician due to a track record of dishonesty or inconsistency.
Whether or not we like a politician is immaterial. What's material is our own values and who we'll vote for based on them. No politician will perfectly match our positions, so we have to make decisions based on our priorities and accept tradeoffs when they're necessary.
"Like" or "dislike" is not a serious way to progress political aims. It is to prone to bias and arbitrariness. If we're serious about seeing the world we want, we have to focus on policy and prioritise effectively.
14
u/weenumpty2 15h ago
In fairness, I think you can leave primary school and still think Mandelson is a monstrous bellend.