Politics Fascist takeover US 2025.

[Gethelred]

Ok, I look forward to being educated.

Horseshoe theory requires you to ignore all but the similarities in political, economic and theoretical positions that have occurred throughout time and across history, in wildly divergent places and settings. It is a gross generalisation, one which smooths out the genuine differences between each philosophy and creed, in order to make only the most pop historical claims imaginable. By using the Horseshoe theory, you demean yourself and those listening to you, dooming you into both ahistorical takes and surface observations about events, figures and moments in time.

That is about as politely as I can put it. I have a good deal more words to say on the subject, but an awful lot of them are insults.

 

[liz]

Horseshoe theory requires you to ignore all but the similarities in political, economic and theoretical positions that have occurred throughout time and across history, in wildly divergent places and settings. It is a gross generalisation, one which smooths out the genuine differences between each philosophy and creed, in order to make only the most pop historical claims imaginable. By using the Horseshoe theory, you demean yourself and those listening to you, dooming you into both ahistorical takes and surface observations about events, figures and moments in time.

That is about as politely as I can put it. I have a good deal more words to say on the subject, but an awful lot of them are insults.

So can you recommend something - to start with a single tome - that will help me understand your argument more fulsomely?

 

[Gethelred]

So can you recommend something - to start with a single tome - that will help me understand your argument more fulsomely?

... try legitimately any academic history or politics textbook. You don't even need to look at university level; just at Year 9 or 10 should do.

 

[faible]

Ok, I look forward to being educated.

Apologies, tagging Gethelred in on horseshoe theory posts is one of my guilty pleasures here.

 

[liz]

... try legitimately any academic history or politics textbook. You don't even need to look at university level; just at Year 9 or 10 should do.

With respect, I have read many history and politics books in my time, albeit not very recently. My concept of “the horse shoe” is a hangover from the totality of what I’ve read, albeit vague.

Before my last post I googled “horse shoe theory” and skimmed two brief articles about a) the theory being rubbish; and b) coming round to the theory after previously reflecting it.

Telling me to read any history or politics book isn’t a constructive response to persuading someone of the fallacy of a concept that is oft cited and thus, I presume, contested.

 

[Gethelred]

With respect, I have read many history and politics books in my time, albeit not very recently. My concept of “the horse shoe” is a hangover from the totality of what I’ve read, albeit vague.

Before my last post I googled “horse shoe theory” and skimmed two brief articles about a) the theory being rubbish; and b) coming round to the theory after previously reflecting it.

Telling me to read any history or politics book isn’t a constructive response to persuading someone of the fallacy of a concept that is oft cited and thus, I presume, contested.

The problem with Horseshoe theory is the same problem with any generalisation or extrapolation across multiple instances: the similarities are emphasized and the differences minimized to the detriment of understanding and a reduction in complexity. Demonstrating that something is generalising would require deeper historical analysis than I have time to do within a forum context, nor do I have the impetus to fully flesh out in serious detail the problem, because doing so would require me to go into specific instances which demonstrate deeper difference in political theories at the extreme fringes and how those fringes differ between extreme left and right.

Second, the burden of proof doesn't really sit with me. I don't have to justify why Horseshoe theory sucks, because it has to justify itself as a complete understanding of history or politics. It fails to do this because it smears completely different ideas with completely different origins with the same beige paint.

Thirdly, it's very popular with the specific brand of online conservative that calls themselves a centrist, and it's very easy to see why they like it so much. They get to throw shade at both sides of the ideological spectrum, where - in the main - it's rather unearned to throw the same shade at the fringes on the left - who believe in shit like gemstones to cure cancer and live in communal harmony with nature - as you would at the right, whose opinion of fashion leaves a bit to be desired among other things. The issues with the authoritarian left too are not the precise same issues with the authoritarian right; motive, means, specific excesses and outputs, dedication to ideology and personal enrichment, and on and on it goes.

It's like saying that plasma is the same as water because they're just matter expressing energy; exactly the same if you ignore all the differences. Human behaviour is so... different, interesting, vibrant; specific to culture, era, setting; to colour in those differences, to force it to fit.

It's as wrong as it is ahistorical.

 

[Gethelred]

Apologies, tagging Gethelred in on horseshoe theory posts is one of my guilty pleasures here.

 

[Chief]

dedication to ideology and personal enrichment

Sir, you speak as if you have not seen the great nation-building work taking place - even now - at www.doge.gov !

 

[CM86]

With respect, I have read many history and politics books in my time, albeit not very recently. My concept of “the horse shoe” is a hangover from the totality of what I’ve read, albeit vague.

Before my last post I googled “horse shoe theory” and skimmed two brief articles about a) the theory being rubbish; and b) coming round to the theory after previously reflecting it.

Telling me to read any history or politics book isn’t a constructive response to persuading someone of the fallacy of a concept that is oft cited and thus, I presume, contested.

It's like saying that because 'the left' and 'the right' both oppose Islam, they're the same.

Except 'the left' oppose Islam due to a general opposition to religion and discriminatory practices.
While 'the right' oppose Islam because it isn't Christianity, and they don't like 'brown people'.

It's like saying a doctor and a torturer are the same because they're both trying to keep you alive.
It's like saying grass roots and astroturfing are the same thing.

The centrist/extremist hypothesis narrows civic political debate and undermines progressive organizing. Matching the neo-Nazi with the radical left leads to the legitimization of far-right ideology and practices.​

 

[Gethelred]

Sir, you speak as if you have not seen the great nation-building work taking place - even now - at www.doge.gov !

...

I'm never getting that eyeroll emojie, am I?