Talk:Horseshoe theory

Rewriting article, crank magnetism
I'd think that it would be good to clarify why some of the extreme ideologies attract so much cranks, instead of only trying to find similarities.

My hypothesis: a lot of people are drawn to extreme ideologies because they are alienated from society. This can correlate with beliefs that oppose mainstream thought ( 9/11 conspiracies etc.). Are there any studies done about this?

But I'd like to mention that the far-left is very generalized. Especially under "Pseudoscience promotion", as I already mentioned. There's also this piece in "Criticism".

"Another variant of the same argument is that the term "left-wing" refers to philosophies that promote broader democracy, political participation, and social equality, and that any form of government straying from this ideal is automatically right-wing instead. In considering this criticism it is instructive to look at the origins of the term "left-wing," which originally referred to the people who sat on the left side of the National Assembly during the French Revolution. Among these original left-wingers was Maximilien Robespierre, on whose watch the revolutionary government, still seated on the left wing, staged a series of political purges, executing about 40,000 people in the space of ten months. "

What left politics meant during the French Revolution has little to do with what's now considered left. I'd say that the article should be rewritten, to not generalize the whole far-left.

But to be honest, I'm not a good candidate for rewriting the article since I suffer from confirmation bias myself on this subject (although I hate the authoritarian far-left, some would call me "extreme" too for just wanting workers to own the means of production, I also sympathize with libertarian socialist thought). &mdash; Unsigned, by: Somebody / talk / contribs 14:04, 14 August 2015‎

Anarchism vs Libertarianism
I notice most of this article is about authoritarianism, but left wing and right wing anarchists also share a lot in common.-Albannach (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as? — Oxyaena Harass  12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC


 * Hatred of any current government and power structure, issues of personal autonomy, possible physical resistance to that, unwillingness to pay taxes (or deal nicely with police), and yes, conspiracy theories.


 * A significant number of both groups favour alternative medicine and hate Big Pharma. (Since the Covid issue is so heavily censored these days, it is hard to tell how many left-wing anarchists are boycotting this year's injections.) They will also be pretty hostile to state-run schooling, and prefer a back-to-the-land existence.-Albannach (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I realize I’m a year late here, but this nonsense shouldn’t just sit here without a response based in reality. You are wrong on just about every point you’re trying to make.
 * 1. Ancaps are not anarchists, that’s just an attempt to co-opt the name. Rothbard himself was very open about this.
 * 2. Anarchists don’t hate “power structures” by default. If neoliberals were forced into a world governed by political systems they disagree with, they would hate those systems in the same way. As for willingness to violently resist, so what? “Moderates” are fine with political violence, they just don’t like to take personal responsibility for it and prefer that it be carried out by cops or the military. Your point is utterly meaningless.
 * 3. No, I don’t like paying taxes that will go towards things I disagree with. But that feeling is based on my principles. Ancaps just want to keep all their money and have created a political philosophy based on that greed.
 * 4. All cops are cowards and I want a world without them. Ancaps (and this is Rothbard again) want cops, but only to protect their property and harass “the bums”. Fuck out of here with this.
 * 5. Anti-vaxx sentiment among anarchists is virtually non-existent. Quite a few centrist IDW types have “contrarian” views on public health though, so this is a weird argument to make in favor of horseshit theory.
 * 6. I would rather have state schools than taxpayer-funded charter schools, and I damn sure want every public teacher to have the strength of a labor union behind them.
 * 7. Anarcho-primitivism is a pretty niche corner of anarchist theory, and even then it’s community focused. Right-wing survivalist shit is individualist and paranoid as fuck. 75.223.149.30 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fish Hook
The Fish Hook theory doesn't even appear as its own article on Wikipedia. It's mostly a fringe group of extremists whining that they are being compared to their allegedly sworn enemy, or people who use "centrist" as a pejorative. Can we agree on how to fix that part of our article? 07:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just as accurate as horseshoe theory. Your whining does nothing to change the fact that, historically speaking at least, centrists have almost always bent the knee to fascism when push comes to shove. Fishhook theory is mostly tongue in cheek as it is. Besides, why do you use the term "allegedly?" It's a well known fact that almost immediately upon entering office the first thing the Nazis did was to purge Germany of its leftist element. — Oxyaena Harass  12:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The very existence of "fish hook theory" is proof that elements of the Far-Left views normal, everyday people as their enemy. The phrase "silence is violence" is outright declaring that anyone who doesn't immediately ally with your ideas is "violent", and thus any violence committed against the centrists is "justified" as "self defence".  17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The very existence of a binary worldview tends to exclude other viewpoints so if someone opposes you, then they assume that you are allied with their "official" opponents. This doesn't just apply to extremists, but also hard two party systems like the USA, where some people struggle to see beyond the DemRep axis. People who see the world as conservative/liberal, capitalist/socialist or whatever fall into that trap. I see it frequently with post-structuralist types too, even on here.-Albannach (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The Nazis didn't just purge Communists, they recruited some, and found it easier to gain converts from the militaristic far-left than the moderate left. (The Nazis may have opposed Communism, but they weren't above stealing some of its ideas and models.) The Soviets also made the famous Molotov-Ribbentropp pact which favoured both parties... But not the Poles.


 * Arthur Koestler said that the Communists in the Weimar Republic spent as much time attacking the Social Democrats and calling them Social Fascists, as they did on the Nazis. George Orwell also discussed how Stalinists kept attacking and purging non-Stalinist Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. In both cases, the far left paid dearly (although the Soviet Union eventually gained some satellite states.)


 * Most extreme groups view "normies" as conformists or sheeple. I'm afraid there appears to be some merit in this, as a lot of people follow whoever's in charge... Even when they're awful.-Albannach (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumbass A somebody. (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Could the sarcastic asshat please fuck off?
Thank you for fucking off. 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely would love to hear why the stuff I just removed deserves to stay on here
Or why my uncited opinion is less deserving than the myriad unsupported opinions that make up most of this article. Please, let's hear it.45.144.113.51 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Revert is all we can do with such a vague argument. Which centrists believe that modern leftists are mass murderers? I am pretty sure most centrists believe that Bernie Sanders, despite all his flaws, is stil better than Donald Trump.
 * If you want to make an edit, please, make intelligent claims, and use sources. And no, the fact that there are unsourced claims on the page doesn't mean you can also make unsourced claims. GeeJayK (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not though? What makes those unsourced claims any better? They're quire a bit more inflammatory, and just as broadly generalized. Don't try to tell me that bringing up fucking Breivik in this context is intelligent. Or do I guess, but you'd be wrong. Why is it important for that existing garbage text to stay in the article? 45.144.113.51 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My point being that the article is better without my addition OR the Breivik comparison, and if my edit should be reverted, so should the other. 45.144.113.51 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, see Two wrongs make a right. GeeJayK (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't strawman. My point is that the correct action is to not include either "wrong". No wrongs makes no wrongs. 45.144.113.51 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also just realized you didn't revert the Breivik stuff when I removed it earlier, so you might be missing that context. Apologies if that's the case. 45.144.113.51 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

So, no credible defense of the unsourced reactionary content that keeps getting reverted, and no reason for why it is more deserving of inclusion than my admittedly snarky but equally valid and now reverted additions. This article is tagged for having tons of unsourced statements. The suggested solution in this site's policy on that issue is to remove the unsourced content, and when someone follows those guidelines, the answer is to revert the edit. They try to make some additions? Why, let's revert THOSE edits while invoking the same guidelines. Better yet, let's question their intelligence, mischaracterize their arguments as logical fallacies, declare an edit-war, and lock the page. Solid work here, totally not an weird little ideological ec(h)osphere of centrists blowing the ashes of their own intellectual consistency up each others' assholes.2003:E8:1F26:FD01:81B6:905E:EE64:55D2 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed my IP address changed, so I want to be clear that my phone died and my prior vpn IP is now blocked, so I turned it off. Not trying to make it seem like I'm a different person jumping into this exchange. 2003:E8:1F26:FD01:81B6:905E:EE64:55D2 (talk) 01:22, 8 Septemberh 2022 (UTC)
 * Also not saying blowing stuff up assholes is an inherently bad thing. Just not a great way to manage a "rational" wiki. 79.213.190.88 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently my wifi is unstable as well. Still the same dude.2003:E8:1F26:FD01:81B6:905E:EE64:55D2 (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is tagged for having tons of unsourced statements. This article is rated silver, and there is currently no sources needed template at the top of the page.  It does have seven "fact" tags, but these do not appear to be what you were dealing with.
 * this site's policy on that issue is to remove the unsourced content. This site's policy is "Any fact should be referenced. This doesn't mean "delete all unreferenced statements", it means to at least be prepared to do some homework and back up our assertions"; "If you think someone put in an untrue fact that is unsourced, or a fact that is true and unsourced but could be sourced, add the template  . This will automatically create the following notation, with a link to this page: [citation needed]. It also puts it into the category of articles with unsourced statements. The original author should then "put up or shut up". Otherwise other diligent editors will then hopefully look for ways to justify whatever the article claims."
 * I don't know who originally made the claims you want to remove, but it'd be easy to find out by looking at the article history.
 * no reason for why it is more deserving of inclusion than my admittedly snarky but equally valid and now reverted additions. If what you removed is in fact invalid, then your addition's being equally valid is good reason to remove it.
 * That a claim is unsourced does not make it false, and does not mean that it should be immediately removed. It may be that it is true, and backed up by reliable sources, which simply haven't been added as they should have been.  The paged is locked, but you can still post here, and what would be productive would be to make a case here, preferably backed up by sources, that the article is in fact inaccurate and that your revisions would improve it.  What is unproductive is to insult other editors and misrepresent site policies about unsourced statements.  It is also unproductive to presume that anybody here is prepared, at a moment's notice, to bring forward a full defence of some particular unsourced claim in an article; nobody is memorizing every point and justification on the site.  The claims were likely made by an editor in good standing, and have been in the article for a while, which is sufficient for them to get the benefit of the doubt against an editor of uncertain reliability removing large chunks of text and adding additional unsourced claims. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This just seems like a whole lot of dissembling words that dance around the fact that the statements I removed are inherently not able to be sourced. They're just lazy and insulting opinions. My edit of the last paragraph hews closer to the source for the preceding text. Why assume good faith editing for text that makes arguments in bad faith? Why is the length of time the edits have stood at all relevant to their quality, when counter-edits are swiftly removed by other editors with clear statements of their own bias towards centrism and capitalism on their user page? Judging by the edit history and talk page, this article seems to be zealously guarded against attempts to make it more objective. As for the policy, it clearly advises users to remove unsourced statements. Disagreeing with your interpretation doesn't equal misrepresentation, but go off. And your point about my point about validity (which only applies to the snarky stuff) is just my point about validity, except my edits are consistent with that point. So what's your point?92.184.107.34 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why assume good faith editing for text that makes arguments in bad faith? You assume good faith always; on closer examination, you might conclude that the text is in bad faith.  Obviously, the bad-faithedness of what you removed is under dispute, or else you likely wouldn't be here.
 * Why is the length of time the edits have stood at all relevant to their quality, when counter-edits are swiftly removed. Wrong claims tend to be disputed; going a long time without being disputed, or surviving dispute, speaks in a claim's favor.  More importantly, commenting on the talk page before making major changes is expected anyway.  From the manual of style: "If you feel the need to remove more than a sentence or two, please copy it to the talk page to discuss your reasons and let other people chime in. Give them a day or two, at least. Silence is not assent."
 * clearly advises users to remove unsourced statements. It explicitly does not advise this as a first course of action, both where it advises against deleting all unsourced statements and advises adding the fact template to claims you think are inaccurate (in fairness, I will admit that if you did this to every unsourced statement in an article, your reception would almost certainly be cold).  Granted, it also calls for the original author to "put up or shut up", but it is unreasonable to expect them to do this if they haven't been alerted to the dispute.
 * my edits are consistent with that point. I see what your point is in saying this.  But, what you did was remove material you claimed was unjustified, then, when reverted, add material you claimed was of equal quality.  The point you were trying to make about double standards is obvious; I'm merely suggesting that the way you're going about it is, let's say, suboptimal, and doing it in a slightly snarky way.
 * My edit of the last paragraph hews closer to the source for the preceding text. Can you clarify which edit you're referring to, and which source?  (From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd advise being very explicit stating where you hew very close to the source, just to save others some effort.  This has nothing to do with being right, per se, but it will probably help you out for rhetorical reasons).
 * the statements I removed are inherently not able to be sourced. Great!  But you've missed an important piece of my advice, which is my fault, since I didn't take care to highlight it.  Somebody put those statements there, and might be interested in defending them, if only they knew what was going on:
 * At least part of what's under dispute here is yours. Specifically, the text highlighted here.  Any comment? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  21:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the fishhook theory was originally something that She Who Shall Not Be Named had been trying to push elsewhere, claiming that we were all "Centrists", ergo evil or something, which is why it was added in. I have to wonder in BoN is her again.  01:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As for that text in specific, while I stand by it, if you want to remove it then we can remove it. 01:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dope. She gone. 2003:E8:1F26:FD01:8022:386A:425A:81E5 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By "you", I meant Serene. Or someone else who's not just a BoN.  16:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By “dope”, I meant cool. By “gone”, I meant excised. By “she”, I meant a poorly written comparison between leftists making fun of dumb centrist concepts, and a far-right mass-murderer of children at a socialist summer school. 217.116.228.10 (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure nationalism is anathema to communists
Given that Milosevic was a nationalist dictator, I think the BON's edits are correct. Vee (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)