Thoughts on Horseshoe Theory?

SSj_Ness (Yiffed) said:
You obviously are pretending that you don't know the definition of bogeyman. Try defining that word and explaining how that applies to concerns regarding the reality of a mass amount of criminals flooding the country.
Click to expand...
SSj_Ness... I don't care.

Burgerland might in itself be a fantasy land for all i give a shit about it. All this talk of yours involve a bunch of races and things that matter only in your small circle of your puny backwater dump. Same goes for AR and her being upset about some white guy wolf whislting her or whatever she was on about it. This is a you problem thing. It's a grudge people outside of your world can't be assed about, and should not be dragged into. And that's the point: it's you going over some stupid squabble over people in woop-woop that you can't fucking drop, like AR, can't get over and you're too up yourself to do anything about it to make your life better, so all you can do is mauld about it online like a crazy person on the street talking about lizard people.

Do yourself a favour, go get a job, go do something in your life because all you do is waste it ranting in the vain hope it all goes away as if a government of all things will do squat diddly for you.
SSj_Ness (Yiffed) said:
Why should I have to flee an invasion which shouldn't be happening in the first place? Leaving the state isn't easy and in principle I shouldn't need to. Why don't you just agree that being "pissy" about face tattooed gangsters allowed to illegally enter is legitimate gripe and not a bogeyman?
Click to expand...
When you're out to survive, you stop bitching about "how things should be" and focus on coping with what you at least do have and are able to do now, getting your shit together before it gets worse.

Try for once cutting your losses and get out while the going's good. Or mauld some more and rot in your falling worldlike you're some spastic Ahab just fine letting his ship sink in a vain effort to make a scratch on that white whale.

Have fun.
 
redcent said:
I don't care.
Click to expand...
Stopped reading there, no need to subject myself to yet another paragraph of logically fallacious seething & deflection, you're tacitly conceding the point.

redcent said:
When you're out to survive, you stop bitching about "how things should be" and focus on coping with what you at least do have and are able to do now, getting your shit together before it gets worse.

Try for once cutting your losses and get out while the going's good. Or mauld some more and rot in your falling worldlike you're some spastic Ahab just fine letting his ship sink in a vain effort to make a scratch on that white whale.

Have fun.
Click to expand...
Fair points actually, but I'm still seeing a distinct lack of acknowledging it's not a bogeyman.
 
Gandhi's Left Hook said:
Fanatics often have a strict adherence to the rule of maintaining and keeping power ABOVE any stated fanatical goals. The goal of the fanatic is to be on top.
Click to expand...
TBF that part applies to all politicians, even the most moderate. It's literally a job requirement.
 
Pedophobe said:
TBF that part applies to all politicians, even the most moderate. It's literally a job requirement.
Click to expand...
Literally what I said at the end but yes. You pointed my point out. Do you want a fucking cookie?

PS. I've been drinking so take my point at like a -7 of whatever 1-10 anger ratio you are reading it as.
 
Not Really Here said:
It's a cone, as you go up on the authoritarianism scale, policy devolves into power for the sake of power.
Click to expand...

I agree, well agree that authoritarianism is its own entity; any form of it, should be removed from political theory in general, it doesn't fall on the political spectrum.
 
Gandhi's Left Hook said:
1. Fanatics do no like free speech.
2. Fanatics like government powers that limit their opponents.
3. Fanatics use, or advocate the use of, violence to enforce the first two points.
4. Fanatics always have an enemy they are fighting against.
Click to expand...
That is exclusive to authoritarian extremes on the left and right that seek wider social change.
Libertarian extremes can (in theory since they tend to get squashed by governments) end up with anarchists living on isolated plots of land and so long as you do not step foot on said land they don't really care (the crazy mountain man prepper whose expecting the race war/nuclear holocaust to happen any day sort). Or your more hippie types end up in communes (these have been tried but fail because human nature doesn't coexist well with the ideological extreme) also perfectly happy to do their own thing.

Where the problem likely comes in is that individual people have a limited capacity to make larger social change. You as a individual can physically only do so much, no matter how big, strong, or smart you are your individual capacity at achieving anything will always be less than a groups.
So those extremist ideologies who seek wider social change (as I've tried to point out, there's a lot of ideological extremes but not all seek to change all of society) necessarily need a collective of some kind and to maintain group cohesion a authoritarian bent is required, which leads to limited individual freedom (you're not going to establish your utopia whatever shape that takes if everyone has their own opinion on what this utopia looks like). Group cohesion is also supported with a "us vs them" tribal mentality, and this hooks into the desire for wider social change because the status quo likes being the status quo and inherently will give opposition to any change (and so we end up with violence being a means of changing or retaining the status quo).
Government simply provides an existing power structure that obviously if subverted offers an avenue for social change, so necessarily it becomes the main target for subversion to the ends of any ideology seeking wider social change.

So I think you're very narrowly defining "fanatic" to be exclusively applicable to a very narrow set of ideological extremes namely more authoritarian subversive ideologies that seek to change wider society. So yeah if we look at very specific ideological extremes on the left and on the right and look at them only superficially in terms of some of their actions then horseshoe theory fits... but that's exactly what I'm saying, it's a very limiting tool to understand extremes of the left and the right as it ignores a lot of the variety in the extremes and only looks at very specific things very superficially.

Gandhi's Left Hook said:
The core similarities between fanatics makes living under one quite similar to the average person even if the stated goals are different.
Click to expand...
I refuse to believe that living under a right wing Christian ultra-conversative authoritarian regime is going to be very similar to living under the Tranny Communist authoritarian regime in anything other than a very narrow set of tactics used to enforce the status quo. Firstly I don't expect the Christian Ultra-Conservatives to force me to suck the tranny cock or for the Trannie Regime to flog me for not going to Church on Sunday.
You're perhaps viewing this incorrectly. You think that if all of society gets overthrown by a new status quo your life and immediate day to day will remain unchanged and only the part of your life that interacts with the current larger systems of society will be impacted (i.e. your private life remains unchanged while your public life is impacted and thus why you list public activities such as free speech, or political violence on the streets, or the galvanizing of public opinion against a common enemy). Sadly that has never once ever been the case in any authoritarian system that has ever been enacted.
 
I (Don't) Have A Gun said:
That is exclusive to authoritarian extremes on the left and right that seek wider social change.
Click to expand...
Nothing is exclusive about it. All governments engage in this type of behavior to varying degrees.


I (Don't) Have A Gun said:
So I think you're very narrowly defining "fanatic" to be exclusively applicable to a very narrow set of ideological extremes namely more authoritarian subversive ideologies that seek to change wider society. So yeah if we look at very specific ideological extremes on the left and on the right and look at them only superficially in terms of some of their actions then horseshoe theory fits... but that's exactly what I'm saying, it's a very limiting tool to understand extremes of the left and the right as it ignores a lot of the variety in the extremes and only looks at very specific things very superficially.
Click to expand...
The point of horseshoe theory is that the farther away one gets from the norm the more they share in common with other people who push away from the norm than they do with the norm. If I'm shot in the head by a communist because I wont pay their taxes, or by a religious (Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Christian whatever) fanatic for not believing in their god, or by some crazy man who got mad I crossed the corner of their land on accident, the end result is that I'm dead. I argue that being dead is less superficial than whatever reason I died for.


Your argument of "superficial" reasons reads to me like one a fanatic would make. You have your side and you think that side is right and just and good, better than the others. Wanting authority is the base quest of both sides. The reasons why are superficial to the outside person who suffers under their rule.

I (Don't) Have A Gun said:
I refuse to believe that living under a right wing Christian ultra-conversative authoritarian regime is going to be very similar to living under the Tranny Communist authoritarian regime in anything other than a very narrow set of tactics used to enforce the status quo.
Click to expand...
Very narrow as in, "do what I say or you die?" To the average person they are the same thing. That's the entire point I've been making and what I feel horseshoe theory is trying to explain.
 
Horseshoe theory is an attempt by centrists to square the circle of their contradicting beliefs that extremism (that which is outside the established political order) is bad because it seeks to use power while centrism (the established political order) is good even though it is established through the welding of power.

The result is the elimination of any political center. After all, the center of the horseshoe is not located on the horseshoe itself. The centrists see themselves as on one side, and everyone else is on the other.

The welding of power is necessary to establish/maintain any political order. Centrists ignore this fact because it is in the best interest of the current political paradigm (regardless of what the current paradigm is) that this fact be ignored.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Verpa Teutonica Ingens
both sides want censorship leftists are less justified but either way it’s still a slippery slope.
 
>Both extremes are fat
>Both extremes are brown
>Both extremes are gay and/or trannies
>Both extremes love kids too much
>Both extremes are deeply retarded
>Both extremes should be burn alive live witches in the middle age
I hope my analysis has been useful to you, bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back