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?

 

[kranky al]

...

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

Mods of the world unite!!

Overthrow your leech overlords

 

[kranky al]

Yep. One side - Elon is a nazi. Other side- these guys did the same thing.
Both sides - but you’re wrong i’m right. We could argue for a year and it will go nowhere.

We all have to apologise to you mate.

Seeing this different angle really shows that it was clearly a “my heart goes out to you” and nothing to do with a “Sieg heil Nazi salute”

 

[kranky al]

Will no one rid me of this turbulent doctor?

 

[Hojuman]

AAAAAAAANNNNND HERE WE GOOOOOOOO

View attachment 2210558

I was thinking about this the other day and lo & behold !

i'm sure Donald has studied the N.K. model too and like some aspects of it.

TRUMP Jong-Barron ? Don't be surprised.

 

[kranky al]

I was thinking about this the other day and lo & behold !

i'm sure Donald has studied the N.K. model too and like some aspects of it.

TRUMP Jong-Barron ? Don't be surprised.

Trump robber-Barron?

 

[Chief]

Yep. One side - Elon is a nazi.

More, Elon is a right wing conservative who has supported and platformed millions of neo-Nazis and other assorted bigots while voicing support for Germany's far right political parties (including lying about their popularity) and UK far-right politicians.

Other side- these guys did the same thing.

When they did not.

Both sides - but you’re wrong i’m right.

One side has evidence in its favour. It ain't the Elmo fans.

We could argue for a year and it will go nowhere.

All that has to happen is for the centre-right to accept the facts witnessed through their own eyes and ears.

 

[Chief]

AAAAAAAANNNNND HERE WE GOOOOOOOO

He'd need to stop burning his cred with certain sections of the population if he wants a third term.

 

[CM86]

View attachment 2211030

Will no one rid me of this turbulent doctor?

Incredible action.

So soon after he has shown that he will pardon anyone who acts on his behalf.

 

[liz]

He'd need to stop burning his cred with certain sections of the population if he wants a third term.

Not if he implements a Russian style election system where no opposition is allowed. Or improves on his implementation of a Venezuelan or Belarusian style election system where he gets to decide the result.

 

[Chief]

View attachment 2211030

Will no one rid me of this turbulent doctor?

It's only "convention" that stops the President contributing to the murder of American citizens who displease him. It's not illegal so what valid complaints should anyone have?

 

[kranky al]

It's only "convention" that stops the President contributing to the murder of American citizens who displease him. It's not illegal so what valid complaints should anyone have?

The US bombed black areas so…..

1985 MOVE bombing - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Seeds]

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.

The accuracy of horseshoe theory isnt constant over time because the ideological underpinnings of the far right and far left can change overtime. Appealing to history is not necessarily relevant to its accuracy today. Today the differences often appear to be at the surface level whereas the similarities are at the core ideological level. I think you have it the wrong way round. As a liberal the ideological arguments used by the far left to justify their policies for support of people who belong to historically repressed minorities appear very similar to the ideological arguments used by the far right to justify their support for people like themselves. Sure those arguments arent exactly the same. But they are a lot closer to each other then the ideological arguments I and most left wing moderates hold.

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.​

The right dont oppose islam other then at the surface level. Ideologically the far right support the same worldview as islam. Just the labels of their gods and scriptures are different.

Moderate Liberals oppose islam for the regions you suggest. The far left go all moral relativist when you bring up islam and argue we should not intervene (or even publically discuss) some of the practises its advocates. They dont align with the far right in largely supporting the islam worldview but they also arent ideolgically opposed like moderates and are therefore closer to the far right then moderates. This example is not a perfect fit of horseshoe theory. But its a lot closer then you suggest.

 

[CM86]

The far left go all moral relativist when you bring up islam and argue we should not intervene (or even publically discuss) some of the practises its advocates.

Where does this happen?

Can you source this of give a verifiable example?

 

[kranky al]

The accuracy of horseshoe theory isnt constant over time because the ideological underpinnings of the far right and far left can change overtime. Appealing to history is not necessarily relevant to its accuracy today. Today the differences often appear to be at the surface level whereas the similarities are at the core ideological level. I think you have it the wrong way round. As a liberal the ideological arguments used by the far left to justify their policies for support of people who belong to historically repressed minorities appear very similar to the ideological arguments used by the far right to justify their support for people like themselves. Sure those arguments arent exactly the same. But they are a lot closer to each other then the ideological arguments I and most left wing moderates hold.



The right dont oppose islam other then at the surface level. Ideologically the far right support the same worldview as islam. Just the labels of their gods and scriptures are different.

Moderate Liberals oppose islam for the regions you suggest. The far left go all moral relativist when you bring up islam and argue we should not intervene (or even publically discuss) some of the practises its advocates. They dont align with the far right in largely supporting the islam worldview but they also arent ideolgically opposed like moderates and are therefore closer to the far right then moderates. This example is not a perfect fit of horseshoe theory. But its a lot closer then you suggest.

Can you name a few far left figures so I can get an idea of where you are coming from?

 

[Gethelred]

The accuracy of horseshoe theory isnt constant over time because the ideological underpinnings of the far right and far left can change overtime.

... exactly?

What is the point of a theory of politics or history proposed as a general rule that doesn't hold true over any amount of time, Seeds?

Appealing to history is not necessarily relevant to its accuracy today.

Cool. I look forward to you proving the lack of historical relevance to the present day right now.

Go on, Seeds. Prove that history isn't relevant or pertinent to the present.

Today the differences often appear to be at the surface level whereas the similarities are at the core ideological level. I think you have it the wrong way round. As a liberal the ideological arguments used by the far left to justify their policies for support of people who belong to historically repressed minorities appear very similar to the ideological arguments used by the far right to justify their support for people like themselves. Sure those arguments arent exactly the same. But they are a lot closer to each other then the ideological arguments I and most left wing moderates hold.

This is about the most general, superficial and specious reasoning I can think of. It involves multiple wild leaps of logic as routine to tie ideologies separated by geographic and philosophical underpinnings distinct from each other that have developed in completely different directions from each other, and completely ignores any nuance or complexity in order to make square pegs fit into a game of chess.

Confirmation bias, thy name is Seeds.

****'s sake. This is stupid every time it comes up, and gets even dumber by the second.