Is there any truth to Horseshoe theory? -

[Rand /pol/]

Wikipedia defines horseshoe theory as:

In political theory, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far left and the far right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe.

I was wondering, do you think there's any truth to this, do you think the far right and the far left are one in the same or is it the horseshoe theory completely retarded?

 

[break these cuffs]

I think horsehoe theory gets bandied about nowadays by political spergs who want to seem smarter than they are. Political beliefs are a pretty all encompassing topic. People, in general, all want the same things; safety, prosperity, etc. They just disagree on how to achieve these goals. If you go to the radical ends of the spectrum you are finding people who want to use the most extreme methods to achieve those goals. There are a relatively limited number of ways to go about it such as violence and censorship. Of course both sides are going to embrace the same methods and have similar goals.

Horseshoe theory in the age of social media is used mostly used by self important faggots to point out how both sides are wrong and they are superior.

Spoiler: embrace superior quoit theory

slate only
clayfags get out

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

I think extremists represent far ends of the spectrum while true republicans and democrats may want to achieve the same amount of change in the world, they just differ on how they want to accomplish it.

 

[SadClownMan]

I mean yeah there validity to the horseshoe theory but its been tainted by le en-lighted centrist skeptic fuck heads.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

I think there is some truth to it, but mostly because of the fact that the left-right spectrum can be a poor way of characterizing political opinions once you get into extreme cases. Compare Stalinism with Nazism for instance. Is it really helpful or accurate to characterize them as occupying opposite ends of some arbitrary political spectrum when they are both mainly notable for bringing about untold death and tyranny?

I think when you're talking about extreme ideologies (be they left-wing, right-wing, or something else entirely), you have to consider the degree to which extremism becomes the defining characteristic, rather than the supposed ideological underpinnings or motivations.

 

[Bassomatic]

It's a fancy way to say simple hypocritical behavior. Often it's the same idea or move but sometimes the biggest change is the end goal, IE race issues, sexuality.

 

[RG 448]

Anyone who doesn’t believe it’s true has obviously never been to tumblr lmao

 

[Sperglord Dante]

Not only is it true, it becomes true-r every passing day.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

Yes, as well as the pendulum effect.
The crazies on both sides are just different sides of the same coin.

They're both equally fun to laugh at, too.

 

[DrainRedRain]

Extremists are similar to each other in many aspects, so I think this theory have its truth.
When you scream unironically 24/7 "FUCK NIGGERS AND JEWS RACE WAR NOW" or "FUCK NAZIS ANTIFA NOW", you will always come out as the big loser. Nobody wins.

 

[An Ghost]

If it’s not real explain this.

#bananime

 

[The Shadow]

If it’s not real explain this.
View attachment 530201
#bananime

Checkmate skeptics

 

[Emperor Julian]

It's a little simplistic, the simularities come from both ends of the extreme holding to ends justify the means morality combined with the presumption you're never wrong.

 

[Ledian]

When people use the horseshoe theory, it feels as if they're only looking at politics like this:

Left < Center > Right

That's it. A very simple view of politics through the lens of idiots using it everywhere.
Reality is that there's a bit more to politics than just being left or right. A good example is the ideologues of authoritarianism and libertarianism. These are not limited to left or right politics at all and create vastly different governments, even if both were on the left or right.
An example being that if you have a leftist authoritarian government, you get a communist dictatorship ala the USSR.
A leftist libertarian "government" is basically anarchy, hopes, dreams and rainbows.

Something simple like that takes the horseshoe and flings it out a window. Those on the far left and far right will have vastly different wants for a government because they'll have different ideas on what the government should do in regards of the people- some may want a dictatorship and go full goose-step while others may want to bring back monarchies. Others still would love anarcho-capitalism and sign NAPs for everything. It varies greatly.

Where it does get it right is their methods: violence, terrorism, open revolt, protests, civil discourse, etc. The reason is because extremism is extremism- it's inherently violent because it's extreme.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

There is and there isn't. Simple fact is the more radical and extreme your political beliefs, the more you're willing to endorse authoritarian violence. This is why dictatorships are the end result of both left and right wing extremism.

 

[laoyang]

I think it's true to a certain extent, not necessarily that the values the extreme left and extreme right have are similar, but the actions they're willing to commit in the name of their ideology are identical.

The USSR and Nazi Germany were on opposite ends of the political spectrum and yet they're identical. They both trampled over the individual in the name of the collective, they censored and banned anything that wasn't kosher with their ideology, they put to death countless people, etc. One just blamed capitalists and the other blamed Jews.

 

[Lysol]

I think the main failing of horseshoe theory is that it's an attempt to try to tie up the "ends" of the political spectrum in a neat little bow and throw it by the wayside, by essentially saying that if the end result of policies (theoretically) enacted by them are functionally the same, then the underlying reasons for wanting to enact them are functionally the same as well and should be disregarded unilaterally. It's the political equivalent of saying that the guy with waterfront property who wants to have regulations regarding water-waste from the factory upstream and the guy who cares about the environment wants the same means that they have the same reasoning and can be taken at face value for what they want done instead of why even though the person with waterfront property doesn't give a single fuck about the environment and the environmentalist couldn't give a shit less how pretty the other guy's view is.

It's made even worse by the fact that you have "le enlightened radical centrists, muh dude" who simply use horseshoe theory as a cheap political maneuver to ignore the underlying concerns of people with whom they disagree with while (often) also assuming the policies they would like to undertake - like assuming that white nationalists want everyone who isn't pale thrown in an oven or assuming that every sjw wants the same for all white people.

As far as the tendency for extremists on either side to lean more towards an authoritarian bent (which is another failing considering the various libertarian extremist ideologies) I'd say it's more like convergent evolution - it's less that they actually agree on anything at all and more that they both desire increased control of the state over the people it governs.

 

[Slap47]

Bit silly to talk about "moderates" and "centrists" as though they're ideologies. These are just the people who go along for the ride. They don't give a fuck or can't be bothered to have a strong opinion contrary to what society has deemed average. The average joe or "centrist" who wasn't extreme left or right was just fine with fighting the commies by installing dictatorships and cracking down on freedoms within the country. These non-committed people's worst extreme is apathetic teenagers and Boogie1488's.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

It's only true insofar as the arbitrary left right spectrum ends at two different forms of authoritarianism. Police states will tend to resemble each other in function regardless of their ideology of origin. Otherwise it's just a bunch of fallacy of the golden middle crap.

The left vs. the right is a terrible way of describing politics and I wish it would go away.

 

[Terran Wraith]

In a way it can be true, but it depends on the political angle it is viewed from.

For the liberal, communist and fascist are the same.
For the communist the liberal and the fascist are the same.
For the fascist the communist and liberal are the same.

What the theory fails to apply is the fact that different political actors have totally different goals and values also it only focuses on a few shallow details.

Nowadays it is being used by the big brain centrist who avoids having an opinion about anything.