Talk:Horseshoe theory/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 April 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Let me guess - this was written by a left-winger butthurt over being lumped with the skinheads. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I was always told this was the "Dark Mirror". Nobody^{don't bother} 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To me it looks like the article right now is a rather elaborate no true Scotsman. It is true that "the lefties are just like the Nazis" is a stupid idea, but it can be argued better, without trying to claim that communism as practiced by the Soviet Union is "not really left-wing". --Tweenk (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Who the fuck wrote this shit? It's a giant fucking ad hom and no true Scotsman.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is terrible. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to both the Horseshoe Theory and the idea that Marxism contains the seeds of despotism, I agree, this needs re-working. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So I'm guessing that this article has done a complete 180 from how it was originally, then. Does that mean we need a different article to refute the wingnut claim that fascism is left-wing, then, or do we already have that? --Brendan Rizzo 12:37, 19 January 2013

Could be worth pointing out that DPRK (North Korea) actually have removed the part about being communistic in the constitution. They are now "only" a dictatorship with no specified political left/right affiliation. Their main trade partner is still China, so it's most likely someplace left, but at least they are no longer communist (in name). This might be because in communism, people are supposed to.. you know.. be equal, and this wouldn't suit the Kim's. ^{— Unsigned, by: Homsefar / talk / contribs 08:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)}

GOP and Commies

I'm simply amazed at the number of similarities I keep finding between the GOP and Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Seriously, at first I was worried I was violating the association fallacy but there's so many similarities it's impossible to ignore. When I was reading one the Neo-Stalinist rags online (the official website of the CPRF no less) it sounded exactly like WND when they weren't talking about economics. Conspiracy theories, "traditional values", "MAKE (BLANK) RESIGN FROM OFFICE"!, etc. It's ironic they hate each other so much. If someone could add more to that section (sources especially) that would be great thanks. ClothCoat (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Social conservatism is a trend on the far-left as it is on the right, it's not particularly shocking. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeh I guess so but even the overdramatic rhetoric was similar. It's just kind of funny is all. I guess they're both basically RWA's so it really isn't all that surprising after all. Though the social conservatism mainly applies to the fringe authoritarians, commie anarchists and a lot of right-wing libertarians/anarcho-capitalists aren't as consistently big on it. ClothCoat (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No True Communist

I don't think it's strictly accurate to say that claiming that China or the USSR weren't communist is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy any more than it is to say that the DPRK isn't democratic or a republic. 75.118.51.238 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

But they were far left communists. A saner argument is that they weren't "Marxists" but every time Marx's dream tries to be enacted it ends with mass starvation. Sorry buddy. ClothCoat (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Communism" is a strictly defined term, and I don't think it's correct to invoke "no true scotsman" when someone points out that an example (such as the USSR or PRC) doesn't fit the definition. There's probably no arguing against the idea that Stalin, Lenin etc were ideologically communists, but no matter what their intentions were the USSR as a country just never fit the systemic definition of communism. (or even socialism) It doesn't matter what these countries called themselves, the proper thing to do is ignore rhetoric and examine the actual features of their system. There's about as much worker control in my trouser pocket right now as there was in the mid-late USSR. If a "true scotsman" had a clear definition, it would not be fallacious to point out that something doesn't fit it. A true scotsman (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the term left-wing

While no doubt an interesting historical footnote, I'm not sure it's very effective in countering the criticism presented, i.e. 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.

I don't see how the historical origin of the term is relevant to the criticism it purports to address. If "everyone" agrees what a particular term means now, then that's what it means, right? Does anyone actually use the term to refer to relative seating positions any more, especially the people who present the mentioned criticism of the Horseshoe Theory?

The fact that people's positions on the economic continuum (free market vs. planned economy) and the social continuum (liberalism vs. conservatism) aren't necessarily correlated is, I think, not strongly disputed -- hence the popularity of the quadrant system which places economic and social views on different axis. The Horseshoe Theory does make clear the trend towards authoritarianism for anyone with very strong views on how things "ought to be", since generally speaking the only way you're going to get a large population to do what you want is to force them to do it (for their own good, of course). However, this perspective seems to agree with the criticism.

I kind of feel like this response is basically saying "sure, but lots of people who claim to be left-wing/liberal/tolerant actually aren't", which is perfectly valid but doesn't seem like it really supports the theory.

--Editor374 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Stalinists and evolution

I know that I read somewhere that the neo-Stalinists in Russia are hostile to Darwinian evolution but can anyone confirm this for sure? I want the comparisons between the Communist party of the Russian federation and GOP to be as accurate as possible. Thank you. ClothCoat (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RadFem/MRA similarity

Here's an article from Political Flavors that does a pretty good job of illustrating similarities between the views RadFems and MRAs (Red Pillers in this case) hold on sexuality. It includes an FSTDT-style list of quotes from RadFems and Red Pillers asking "Who said this?" with answers on the bottom. I made a makeshift quiz out of it on a slip of scratch paper and got 11/18 right, but I was able to spot the ones I got right based more on their style rather than their substance (the last comment on the bottom is mine). It was nevertheless eye-opening, and this may be a useful source for anyone looking to expand the RadFem/MRA section of our own article. The One They Call Mars (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Both (sides) are convinced the media is heavily biased against them

... may very well be true (especially when The Racing Post, The Daily Star and other non-news-papers of whatever particular interest coverage are included). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The horseshoe

... is upside down - so will all the luck 'run out' (if one believes such things - and 'horseshoes apparently "work" even if you don't believe in them'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

CPRF

Why is it cited as an example of leftist or communist? They are socially conservative,economically social-democratic,anti-gay, pro-christian, pro-putin and so on.^{— Unsigned, by: 109.252.211.239 / talk 17:26, 3 March 2015‎ (UTC)}

lol

This article is peak rationalwiki. The author is patting himself on the back and going "hmm, clearly these opposing things are actually the same because they are different from what I think and know about, and if you squint there are superficial similarities. yes truly I am the most Rational for writing a lot of words about why the ideas I was raised with and have never stopped to analyze or reconsider are correct" and then stroking his fedorabeard.

I mean c'mon the list of similarities is amazingly bad, there's no attempt to analyze each point to see what the difference between each ideology arriving there is, or even if it's true, instead drawing a bunch of false equivalences (I mean, "Both strongly support "traditional values," meaning hardcore social conservatism, hostility to LGBT rights, and pro-life attitudes" is a pretty wild thing to accuse the modern communist movement of. And by "modern" we're talking the 1960s onward, and I'd love "Both support largely discredited economic crankery that is usually defended with "common sense" type arguments." elaborated regarding say, the USSR's economy from the end of the NEP until the 70s Breznev Decline). It's just really smugly ignorant.^{— Unsigned, by: 82.40.12.117 / talk 08:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)}

Oh, noes! We have been truly #rekt by your wit. Our neckbeards shall curl up and fall away. How can we withstand the withering fire of so many dank may-mays!? (Seriously, if you are accusing people of being smug, try not to do it smugly. Otherwise, people may think that you are a hypocrite who is more interested in point-scoring than actual criticism.)

Anyway, I agree that the article is flawed and suffers from confirmation bias, but I don't have time for a cleanup at the moment.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It even claims TRP = MRA. Absolutely no research at all went into that. Actually, TRP rejects MRA logic about half the time, as TRP not an advocacy group of any kind. And I'm not sure what ZooGuard's point is about hypocrisy. Who gives a shit what people think about the person's intentions? They are right; that's all that is relevant.^{— Unsigned, by: 104.173.14.111 / talk / contribs}

LULZ!

Incredible that Whitaker Chambers is cited as saying Rand wasn't any different than Communists, since he himself was a former radical leftist who became an anti-communist conservative. Burkean (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative medicine and the far-left

Personally, I've found out that the far-left isn't really concerned with alternative medicine, as otherwise stated in this Wiki page.
RevLeft even has discussion about alternative medicine in the Opposing Ideologies section. They even considered moving it to Religion. RevLeft is not representative for the whole far-left, but the notion that both extremes advocate alternatively medicine a lot isn't true, this being said as someone involved in leftist communities.
See for example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/homeopathic-medicine-and-t193606/index.html ^{— Unsigned, by: Somebody / talk / contribs 22:08, 11 August 2015}

Oh ... thanks ... good ... (I think) Scream!! (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ox shoes

... are in two parts: how could the 'theory' be adapted to them? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Another good example of the horseshoe theory is that Stalinists and Nazis both tend to hate Jews. Just look at the USSR under Stalin and Storm front. 176.0.33.107 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Left and Right views of Putin

This article completely misses the point with Putin. Certain parts of the Right like him because they think he's a forceful leader who is putting the gays in their place. Portions of the Left (the actual left, not MSNBC-style liberals) don't like him, but they approve of the way he has repeatedly cock-blocked US imperial ambitions. There's a huge difference. You won't find many (if any) people in places like CounterPunch who actually like Putin or his domestic policies (though you will find people who would like to contextualize him and the environment that he arose from; Americans are apparently completely oblivious to the Western-led looting of Russia that happened in the 90s. Putin is an entirely predictable strongman that such circumstances produce, someone who can get the situation and oligarchs at least partially under control). His intervention in Syria has Russia not only leading the fight against the same ISIS that America has been fear-mongering about for over a year, but completely trouncing the CIA and Pentagon-backed 'rebels', two birds with one stone. So yeah, there are a lot of people who support Putin and his efforts to prevent yet another Middle-eastern country from becoming a chaotic failed state. 73.240.20.135 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Shit Liberals Say

Doesn't like it. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Communism:Religious and socially conservative?Really?

I think this is an extremely unfair portrayal of communism.-Maeve (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In the 1920s, the Soviet authorities released the reins on sexual mores. Sexual freedom and emancipation of women were seen as part of the struggle against religion, grammar schools, the teaching of Greek and Latin, work uniforms, and the czarist-era Table of Ranks. —

http://rbth.ru/society/2013/09/30/sex_in_the_soviet_union_myths_and_mores_30325.html

The whole article is vague generalisations, and the horseshoe theory is about the common view of communism rather than the reality. Most communist regimes went through cycles of repression and liberalisation. The current Russian Communist party is pro-Orthodox Christianity, but that's certainly unusual. As for social freedoms, it's definitely a mixed bag: Ceausescu's Romania was super-conservative, with women viewed as breeding machines. Third world communism was often very puritanical, though the more liberal parts of communism Eastern Europe were much more laisser-faire. In the arts/media many were often very strict with censorship of anything that could be seen as decadent or lacking in Stakhanovite inspirational value, but there was quite a lot of sex in communist eastern European cinema in periods of liberalisation. But a lot were very anti-homosexual and not big on drugs. There's a funny bit in Barry Miles's Allen Ginsberg biography where he goes to Castro's Cuba in the early 60s expecting to find a paradise of dope and gay sex, but Castro does not see that as a priority. Annquin (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is common knowledge Stalin persecuted the Orthodox church and religion in general, a trend which continued up until the dissolution of the USSR. Furthmore the article is talking about the Russian Communist Party in particular. Also I would like to see evidence the party is pro-life. I put this here as opposed to removing anything cited,but I think it's poor information.-Maeve (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Complete bullshit

No political science experts would ever give credence to such a simplistic political concept made only for self-congratulatory smug centrists. Withoutaname (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Liberals and conservatives mirror each other in significant ways:

• Both support capitalism
• Both support the nation-state
• Both are anti-communists
• Both are afraid of any radical change in social structure
• Both believe in free speech, and that the best ideas will win in history
• Both are reactionary
• Both believe in reformism
• Both believe in (bourgeois) political parties
• Both are against class antagonism
• Both support individualism over collectivism
• Both believe in private ownership

Withoutaname (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

...Will someone do the honors? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe in nation states. And I don't think radical change in social structure is necessarily bad, but most of the times it has occurred historically it has been negative, not positive. I do however believe that individuals should be at the center of all political systems. I don't quite get what you mean by "reactionary" and I don't think I am "anti-communist" in the sense of outlawing communist parties, newspapers, rallies and so on. And private ownership of some things can be good, but we should look at the outcome. If private ownership of e.g. health care or railroads hurts more people than public ownership, we should go with public ownership. Do you still think I am a liberal? I am not the Ombud's man 23:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• "I do however believe that individuals should be at the center of all political systems"
• "And private ownership of some things can be good, but we should look at the outcome"

Yes I think you're a liberal. Withoutaname (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A political system that says "We have to kill this individual for the benefit of society" is no system I would like. You know, everybody should chip in for the benefit of everybody, but yes, individual rights trump collective rights. And if you don't like that, I have a collective in East Asia to sell you. I am not the Ombud's man 00:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The horseshoe theory and free speech

A short clip from Steven Pinker, replying to a (rambling, one-minute long) question about the above mentioned issues. You're welcome to skip the actual question and start at 1:00 in the video, since Pinker's own words are what I found interesting here:

The concept of a left (or right) "pole" — as in "polarity" — is interesting (atleast in the psychological sense), and while it might have more to do with jonanism than with horseshoe theory (per se), I wanted to post this video somewhere. Thoughts on this? "Bra eller anus", as we say in Sweden? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tankies, HOOO!

There's a Swedish woman named America Very-Zavala. She's authoritarian left and a tankie. Co-founder of the Swedish chapter of Attac.

What's interesting is, she was interviewed by Sveriges Television (our trustworthy and qualitative state media company), and she was very clear about preferring Trump over Hillary any day of the week.

Being a high-profile communist in Sweden, her pussygrabber support didn't go without due analysis. Dagens Nyheter — one of our foremost newspapers — ran the following editorial today, correctly pointing out what is essentially the lesson of horseshoe theory.

The editorial in question was written by a woman named Amanda Björkman, and I thought so much of her lucid writing — in all its simplicity — that I've chosen to translate it here by hand (as I think doing so captures her message better than Google translate alone would):

America Vera Zavala — who became known as one of the [Swedish] far left's most prominent figures in the 90's, working today as a playwright — explains [in last night's episode of Agenda] that she thinks it's good that Hillary Clinton lost. "I would've been much more devastated to wake up with her as president than Trump," she says.

One would've hoped that the gravity of the situation would get people to prioritize — that Brexit, the election of Trump, Vladimir Putin's actions, the upcoming French election and the developments in Turkey would've gotten people to value the openness that we've been able to get used to here in the West. But no.

The man who is the very symbol of what the far left would otherwise claim to be combating — ruthless capitalism and a lack of basic respect for other people — is given a warm welcome [by the far left]. A billionaire who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who functions as a jukebox loaded with sexist and racist statements, has become the ally of the far left.

Why? Because right-wing Trump supporters and parts of the far left have common goals. They build their political visions based on nostalgic retrospection, an abhorrence of free trade, a frosty disposition towards the EU and a penchant for walls. With Donald Trump at the helm, the outside world can no longer rely with confidence either on the US or NATO to intervene. A state of affairs relished by the Vera-Zavala-type far left.

But when the enemy of your enemy begins to be regarded as your friend, be certain of one thing: if you haven't already lost all perspective, then it's only a matter of time until you do.

Respecting democracy? Valuing human rights? Such notions obviously aren't of any priority to the Trump-hugging far left. The only thing that seems important to them is that the president promises to make the world's countries more detached from each other again.

This unholy alliance has already done great harm in the UK and runs the risk of doing even more damage in the future. If we're going to be able to move, think and act freely in the future as well, it's time to stop taking our freedom to do so for granted.

I hope the lucidity wasn't completely destroyed in my attempts to translate this.

TL;DR: Tankies gonna tank. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally identify as a libertarian socialist. I think the support Trump gets from the far left (not from all,left is highly divided) can be divided into 3 categories

1. Some of them like powerful leaders. Their disdain for liberals and fact that Hillary Clinton is highly unlikable even to many liberals have contributed to their support to Trump. Since Trump is not your average conservative and also the fact that he cannot hide his admiration for other authoritarian leaders to Vladimir Putin, etc. Stalinists, some of Marxist-leninist, Maoist might support Trump because of this.
2. Some of them hate Trump's policies like Muslim travel ban, blatant misogyny and racism and call his supporters 'fascist'('bash the fash' rhetoric). However they see Trump's rise to power as a symptom of something being wrong of current socioeconomic system. They feel Trump supporters are wrongly blaming their woes on immigration and elites when problem in their view is capitalism. They think eventually Trump supporters will come to same conclusions. In other words they believe Trump and his policies are accelerationist.
3. Some of them support Trump only because they feel his policies will be catastrophic to America which is what they want. I don't get what causes such deep hatred in them.

116.72.40.183 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Also a libertarian socialist and this is the first I have ever heard about leftists supporting Trump. Some of them disliked Hillary enough to stay home or vote for a third party, but Trump? Not in a million years. The existence of an outlier in Sweden and a few others doesn't mean anything. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Martin Luther King quote

I don't think it's really about horseshoe theory, should it really be there? Christopher (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It does not specifically mention horseshoe theory by name but it talks about moderates who "are more interested in order than justice", who prefer an absence of tension to the presence of justice. It also presents a counterthesis to horseshoe theory, directly equating moderates with the far right. His assertion is not compatible with horseshoe theory. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the quote wouldn't serve better in some other article, though. As a huge MLK fan myself, I get the impression that forcing his quote into the context of the horseshoe theory skews his message to sound like he was arguing in favor of jonanism (which he wasn't — nor are we). I think the quote might fit perfectly under willful ignorance (or some species of denialism), however? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The belief that moderates are comparable to members of the far right is no less jonanism than the belief that the far left are comparable to members of the far right. Moderates, the far left, and the far right are all vastly different [edit: groupings of disparate] ideologies. People are entitled to compare vastly different things by analogy (imagine if they weren't), but doing so is not jonanism. And if it is jonanism, then this article shouldn't exist to begin with. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC) edit Cat A. Lonia (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against the making of comparisons (or about whether or not things are comparable). Hell, that's 95% of what humor is! All I'm saying is, comparisons are great — except when they're not. Here follows an attempt at clarifying the matter.

The far right and far left are obviously both far (i.e. far from the centre). As such, the distance between "far X" and "far Y" is much smaller than the distance between the centre and anything "far" whatsoever — indeed, by virtue of it being "far". That's horseshoe theory in a nutshell. No controversy there.

Now, you could certainly argue that (for example) the centre is worse (or more dangerous) than the far right is. All that would convey is that you personally happen to favor far right policies over centrist policies — and doing so is not a categorical error.

But merely holding such views doesn't actually lend credence to the categorical proposition that the centre (per definition: not far from itself) and anything far (per definition: not near the centre) approximate each other in the same way that two "far" positions do. This is where jonanism enters into it.

You wrote:

"The belief that moderates are comparable to members of the far right is no less jonanism than the belief that the far left are comparable to members of the far right."

Keeping in mind that I'm not arguing against the making of comparisons (in and of itself)...

I agree that it's certainly not jonanism to point out that things which fall into the category "far" fall into the category "far". Indeed, that's deductively true.

What is jonanism, however, is treating things that belong to different categories (e.g. "far" and "moderate") as if they belonged to the same category on the basis of disagreeing with you.

In other words; everyone who disagrees with you on topic X is not of the same view on topic X.

Grasping that essential difference is vital in the effort to reduce the splitting we humans perform automatically (and to dire consequence).

You know the old (and unrelated) adage, "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend"? Well, jonanism would instead give it as "All of my enemies are friends". A more fitting slogan for the psychological defense mechanism known as splitting (see above) would be hard to come by.

Indeed — contrary to the split worldview — it's not the case that either people are with you, or they're with the terrorists. And that's not what MLK meant, either. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Far" here is completely meaningless. It's a construction made by people with a particular worldview. It is not meaningful in any sense that it describes any sort of reality of the material world. "Far left" means wanting justice for the downtrodden while "far right" means wanting rule by the strong and the death of the weak. The only similarity here is that centrists use the adjective "far" to describe both... because both disagree with them. That's not a categorical similarity; it's a similarity of the language used to describe them from a certain person's perspective. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... So; "Far left" translates to "unequivocal good" — getting the more just the further left you go, ad absurdum!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You're the one making the value judgment. In some people's eyes, wanting rule by the strong and the death of the weak is good. In some people's mind, wanting justice for the downtrodden is bad. I think these people are trash, but their ideology is independent of my opinion; they exist in tremendous numbers nowadays. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I also love how you posted that "srs" gif about something I never said, that only you said. Do you normally make up arguments for people and then laugh at them? Because you're the one being a ridiculous asshat. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Really he says moderates are much worse and much more dangerous than the far right, which is even more clearly damning of "the middle." Cat A. Lonia (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he meant, and it's certainly a fallacy to just flatly posit that, ceteris paribus, a moderate view on a given topic is worse than a less moderate view on the same. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No more than it is a fallacy to posit that a far left view is comparable to a far right view. But unlike centrists who deal in meta-ideological abstraction, he was obviously not positing this. Martin Luther King had a clear ideology and worldview which he believed was just and which he did not see as being anywhere comparable to the worldview of his enemies. He believed that moderates, by attacking his "extreme tactics" while superficially claiming to agree with him, were getting in the way of material justice for Black people. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the impressive amount of concern trolling mitläufers that MLK was up against. And as a feminist, I'm well aware of the flaws of proverbial "extremist" gambits.

Nay, what perplexes me in your reasoning is on the logical side of things (or illogical side, as it were).

For example, your composite claim that:

"flatly posit[ing] that, ceteris paribus, a moderate view on a given topic is worse than a less moderate view on the same" is "no more [a fallacy] than it is [...] to posit that a far left view is comparable to a far right view."

A far left view is comparable to a far right view, though. Indeed, most things in the world are comparable (in a basic sense), though not always usefully so.

But it's certainly not true that, ceteris paribus, a moderate view on a given topic is worse than a less moderate view on the same. Indeed — we know this not to be the case.

And I don't just say that because I'm Swedish. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Usefully comparable was exactly what I intended by the word comparable; it's a secondary meaning of the word. I apologize for my imprecision. It is fallacious to use the adjective "far" to describe two ideologies that are different from your own on the basis of them being different from your own, then say these ideologies are categorically equal because both are far. It is fallacious because it reduces to the very fallacy you were accusing MLK of. But MLK didn't mean here that everyone who was against him was the same. He meant that white moderates, by valuing order and stability (the standard by which they judge something as being "center") and devaluing tension (the standard by which they judge something as "far"), do far more to hinder racial justice than the KKK does. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's possibly sort of about horseshoe theory (I still personally can't see how). I certainly think the bit below the quote should go. Christopher (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the bit below the quote had already gone; I don't think you noticed? Cat A. Lonia (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of it had, I still thought the rest should go as well. Don't we already have the same quote in another article? Copy pasting it into the search doesn't give any results but I could've sworn we had it somewhere. Christopher (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen it in another article but that doesn't mean it isn't in one. I originally wanted to add it to an article on centrism where I thought it would be most appropriate, but it's just a redirect to the political spectrum. The part I added below was meant to emphasize that being passionate about fighting material inequality does not make one equivalent to someone who, for example, passionately believes in the superiority of the white race. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What is certain is that we could use more qualitative MLK quotes. I still think the quote would work best in the article on willful ignorance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

RATIONALwiki (drink!)

If this is the sort of wiki where people literally think racial segregation is a matter of opinion rather than an action with measurable material consequences, I'm just going to leave now. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

But nobody even impli- Aah, never mind. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your drinking game rule didn't even apply here; I didn't ever say the word rational or even imply it. It's almost like you are doing this automatically without reading a single thing anyone actually says. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, is "facepalm" your response to every single person who points out the idiocy of your reasoning based entirely on an illusory spectrum? "I call both groups far, therefore they're the same!" Brilliant work. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Like you are literally just making shit up ("RATIONALwiki", "the far left is unequivocally good") and then acting like I'm the asshole. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

On this article in general

The political spectrum itself is highly reductionist, though it's not baseless. But when you start turning this helpful-albeit-reductionist spectrum into a horseshoe and using it to draw actual conclusions, you're getting into some serious pseudoscience. And finding anecdotal evidence of where it was true doesn't change the basic fact that it's nonsense. There is a very clear difference between being willing to resort to extreme tactics to increase justice for the powerless, vs. being willing to resort to extreme tactics because you have contempt for the weak and you think they should all die. Members of the far right often talk like members of the far left (e.g. Hitler talking about Jews the way Communists talk about the bourgeoisie), but they can also talk like moderates when they want to; see Milo Yiannopoulos. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

1. So we're doing pseudoscience, of all things? I'd like you to offer me your definition of that word, because I fail to see how that specific term applies here in the least.
2. What about our current article appears "nonsensical" to you, exactly? The fact that extremists of all walks share an equal frustration with the vast, non-extremist majority? A majority which always needs explaining away — be they sheeple, reverse racists, blind and/or asleep, inherent oppressors, Quisling collaborators, or just suffering from false consciousness?
3. "Anecdotal evidence" and "the drawing of actual conclusions"...? You do realize that RationalWiki is original research, right? You know — much like the original research you yourself were inserting into both this and other articles just hours ago? Besides, regarding "the drawing of actual conclusions" — not that it's actually a problem that anyone draws conclusions, but... Have you done anything but draw conclusions today yourself, in mainspace and on talkpages alike? We don't fault you for doing that — so why fault us for doing the same? Finally, regarding your suddenly elevated standards of evidence, here's a wild guess: you'd accept anecdotal evidence which panders to your pre-concieved beliefs in a heartbeat. And I don't say that to sound rude or to single you out in any way. On the contrary, I think we all need to humbly remind ourselves that this is what humans beings do.
4. So wait, let me get this straight... Assuming I understand you correctly; you seriously think that (quote) "members of the far right" — the actual human beings — are inhumanly uniquely capable of hatred? I'm sorry to say that you're a fool if you think that being a far leftist means you're incapable of hating the harmless, or that being a far righter means you couldn't have deluded yourself into thinking you're actually doing good. I don't mean to sound condescending here, but I feel obliged to just point out that reality is much more nuanced than anything remotely resembling good guys vs. the baddies. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're engaging in pseudoscience. Horseshoe theory is not political science, it is internet bunk. Tell me, what about Kropotkinism is in any way similar to Mussolini's fascism? What do you think of as the center, personally? Neoliberalism? Pinochet has more in common with Hitler than, say, Pancho Villa does, and Pinochet's economic policies are straight out of the Chicago School.

Do you see what I'm saying? Yes, Stalin and Hitler were basically a reflection of each other in terms of atrocity and crimes against humanity (and little else), but that's because of their individual political ideologies. It's because of the specific qualities of those dictators and their regimes. It had nothing to do with their relative positions on the left/right spectrum at all.

There are right wing pacfists and left wing terrorists and vice versa. There are right wing authoritarians and left wing anti-authoritarians. Even movements one on side of the spectrum are vastly different from each other. How is Trotsky anything like Bakunin? How is Hitler anything like Reagan? Were the Maquis and antifa really so similar to Hitler and the brownshirts just because they used violence? Was Durruti really the same as Franco? Is liberation theology really the same as Wahhabism?

Horseshoe theory is how an adolescent thinks. This is the same kind of reductionist pap as "People only do things for selfish reasons." Like, horseshoe theory is so utterly facile and childish that it falls apart at the first glance if you know anything at all about political science. To reduce all political ideologies down to "left" or "right" just speaks to a person's political illiteracy. Even looking at authoritarian and anti-authoritarian socialist/liberal axes, it's still childish, reductionist nonsense. Not all authoritarian and anti-authoritarian groups are the same. Horseshoe theory speaks to an almost complete ignorance of political theory and history. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A distinction should be made between 'the political beliefs' of the groups, 'the choice of language ('look at us, anti-establishmentarians'/cryptopseudoanarchocaesropapaloimperatorsinsterdextroantidiestablishmentarians)' and 'the tactics used.' 31.51.113.89 (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Change name of article

It would probably be best if this were called the Horseshoe effect rather than the Horseshoe theory, as it does not always apply; this is the name given on the corresponding tvtropes article, for example: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheHorseshoeEffect Skadooshbag (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I have a brilliant idea, why don't I reply months after you posted this, rather than immediately to foster discussion. The easiest answer is: the name has existed for a long-ass time and people(other than weird tv tropes people, apparently) don't say the words "Horseshoe effect". I think it's fair to say horseshoe theory is not in any sense, a scientific theory, but we aren't dictators of the English language here. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Gonna raise the same objection I raised at wikipedia to save time

Looks like the academic literature in poltiical science does not discuss horseshoe theory as legitimate at all. I spent hours search and literally all I could find was papers that lead with trite dismissals of it, and a few outright refutations, but literally nothing, not even in the post modern journals, using it as an actual frame of analysis. When we crib wp's "in political science" phrasing, we're maybe doing the field a disservice by attributing an idea that exists entirely within the field of punditry to actual academics. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, what do you propose to do then? Can you find a serious refutation of it? If not, it sort of exists in limbo as neither validated nor invalidated. Bongolian (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The horseshoe theory of politics may be largely discredited..., The so-called centrist/extremist or horseshoe theory points to notorious similarities between the two extremes of the political spectrum (e.g. authoritarianism). It remains alive though many sociologists consider it to have been thoroughly discredited (Bertlet & Lyons, 2000)(and look at that graph). That's pretty seriously dismissive language for academia. And, as I said, I can't find sources that use it seriously, which would definitely moderate my concerns a great deal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The links is just to a paper presentation at a conference by Pavlopoulos, so it was necessarily peer reviewed, but have you looked at the book that was cited by Pavlopoulos for the discrediting of Horseshoe theory, @Ikanreed? That might be the place to go to get a good counter-argument for this page: Berlet, C., & Lyons, M. (2000). Right-wing populism in America: Too close for comfort. New York: Guilford Press. Bongolian (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The general absence of papers taking it seriously at all is the whole objection to the wording in the first place. It's just not political science, it's amateur analysis. I don't object to the idea existing, just worry over giving it more credibility than it deserves. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Horseshoe theory is utter nonsense. The far left is much, much broader than the kind of authoritarianism displayed by Stalin, but unfortunately most people in the centre will never accept that their position is not the 'default'. 95.147.33.242 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is far more variety, but I think there are some odd similarities between people on supposedly opposite sides of the spectrum. I mention left wing and right wing anarchism (aka Libertarianism) below, which I believe share similarities not just more authoritarian groups. I think politics is subjective so it is hard to quantify scientifically, but if a group has an absolutist viewpoint, it will resemble others which do.

As for the so called centre, isn't that itself based on where the Overton Window lies? Centrist politics is hard to define because no one is dead centre. A party's membership may straddle it though. There are a number of ways to view what the centre is - some see it as a compromise between the two sides, and others as a less extreme versio of the two... Ironically, in one sense it may be more conservative (in the sense of conserving the status quo) than actual Conservatism.-Albannach (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Welp

Saw our article cited in the wild as evidence that horseshoe theory is true and valid, in spite of the objections I raised above. Now I'm concerned that we're too fair to it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is completely without merit, but it is not a perfect model. It all depends how one defines left and right. Jihadism and violent anti-Islamic groups both lie on the far right, and are supposed to be opposed, but even they may share features in common including militantism and a desire for censorship & persecution.-Albannach (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is this even a discussion?

Horseshoe "theory" is something that is only espoused by pundits, with no support from actual political scientists, and in some cases treated with derision. The burden of proof is on the idea that horseshoe theory is real, we don't need peer reviewed studies on it being bullshit to not have an article whose bulk is dedicated to treating it as if it's an actual respected theory.142.161.98.149 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the page by putting refutational material at the beginning. If you have specific ideas for improvement, let's hear them. Bongolian (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, a good start would be to rewrite the intro to make it not act like this is a respected scientific theory (especially the "in political science" as this is not an actual concept used by political scientists), pruning the tumorously gigantic anecdote list, and maybe providing possible counterarguments to those specific anecdotes. Anything less is really just sticking a bandaid on a bullet wound.142.161.98.149 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to try rewriting it. Bongolian (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a bit of rebuttal to the lede (including a couple of critical links and a short explanation on why it's crap and why it's popular) and I changed the first sentence to say it's a claim rather than anything else. But definitely could do with more work. I couldn't find any academic studies about why it's bollocks although there was an article by the political scientist Simon Choat. --Annanoon (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that there are two roots to the problem. The first being the idea that the "far right" and the "far left" are discrete political things. When they are, in fact, collections of things. That means that you will sometimes find things which are similar.

The second is that, as far as they exist, they are both extreme. And that possibility that some people with many extreme views will have some similar positions to other people with many extreme views is quite high.

(There is also the problem with definitions - what is "far"? Is Bernie Sanders "far left"? From a european perspective what I know of him seems quite moderate.)Hubert (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have added a new section, Horseshoe theory#A possible explanation, which from a philosophical perspective at least explains horseshoe theory for conspiracy theorists. Bongolian (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Chinese Movement

The anti-Chinese movement that started in San Francisco in the mid 1800s was a political movement that united working class and elite whites against Chinese immigrants. It wasn't really "nativist" because the main opponents to Chinese immigration were Irish immigrants, who formed the "left wing" of the movement, while elite people, lawyers, writers, were the "right wing". There were also some Progressives who supported. It was a racist movement, violent, often burning down neighborhoods to terrorize (and kill) Chinese people.

The unity between "left" and "right" was constructed on a basis of white racism against nonwhite people, particularly Chinese workers. 2600:1700:6710:7A80:3CA8:562B:70DE:CB08 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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). ^{— 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? CorruptUser 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". CorruptUser 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)