Seriously, if you believe that you can simplify human thoughts about politics with a one dimensional rule, be it straight, curved like a horseshoe or a more fancy shape, you should take it as a sign that you haven't quite spent the time required to form a proper opinion.
I agree 100%. It seems ridiculous that we represent the real world via tensors, but something as complex as politics is a single axis on a graph.
However, that doesn't mean that adding one modifier to the 1D view isn't valuable. I would argue that in-fact, horseshoe theory shows how inaccurate the 1D analysis really is, and leads the reader to think deeper about the entire situation.
Ah, the horseshoe! One of the toolbag essentials of any self-respecting "critical thinker", crank, centrist, or "heterodox" illuminary. :D
Already bizarre when invoking the Soviets of all people, who were socially, outside of some avantgardists which were only tolerated as long as they were considered useful or irrelevant, extremely conservative.
But then again, to many a conservative, a leftist or progressive of any kind, is "a commie", and the difference between social democrats, different breeds of socialists, or communists for that matter, is already as lost on them as code is to a cat. Shit, according to recent trends, Hitler was akshually a leftist anyway. ;)
The same goes for contextualizing political violence; it's all the same, everywhere, all at once.
Have you not read his very consistent and personally defended party platform? He also said that the communists were close enough in ideology to join his party.
The idea that the communists were the opposite of the Nazis and fascists was an idea spread by the communists to create confusion and try to improve their own image.
For some definitions of "close enough" that includes sending each others in camps, making it a crime to defend the other opinion punishable by machine gun, and of course, full scale military invasion of the other country.
But yeah sure, they both talk like they want big changes, so they are the same.
The only thing that the horseshoe theory got right is the inflated self importance of the center.
>Proponents point to a number of perceived similarities between extremes and allege that both tend to support authoritarianism or totalitarianism;
From my experience that is the case. Surprising amount of people on the far right and far left when they drift into talk of violence and disruption talk about the same acts against the same people.
To me, the greatest historical example has to be the fact that the furthest left government, and furthest right government, started World War II together.
Seriously, if you believe that you can simplify human thoughts about politics with a one dimensional rule, be it straight, curved like a horseshoe or a more fancy shape, you should take it as a sign that you haven't quite spent the time required to form a proper opinion.
I agree 100%. It seems ridiculous that we represent the real world via tensors, but something as complex as politics is a single axis on a graph.
However, that doesn't mean that adding one modifier to the 1D view isn't valuable. I would argue that in-fact, horseshoe theory shows how inaccurate the 1D analysis really is, and leads the reader to think deeper about the entire situation.
Ah, the horseshoe! One of the toolbag essentials of any self-respecting "critical thinker", crank, centrist, or "heterodox" illuminary. :D
Already bizarre when invoking the Soviets of all people, who were socially, outside of some avantgardists which were only tolerated as long as they were considered useful or irrelevant, extremely conservative.
But then again, to many a conservative, a leftist or progressive of any kind, is "a commie", and the difference between social democrats, different breeds of socialists, or communists for that matter, is already as lost on them as code is to a cat. Shit, according to recent trends, Hitler was akshually a leftist anyway. ;)
The same goes for contextualizing political violence; it's all the same, everywhere, all at once.
> Hitler was akshually a leftist
Have you not read his very consistent and personally defended party platform? He also said that the communists were close enough in ideology to join his party.
The idea that the communists were the opposite of the Nazis and fascists was an idea spread by the communists to create confusion and try to improve their own image.
For some definitions of "close enough" that includes sending each others in camps, making it a crime to defend the other opinion punishable by machine gun, and of course, full scale military invasion of the other country.
But yeah sure, they both talk like they want big changes, so they are the same.
The only thing that the horseshoe theory got right is the inflated self importance of the center.
> "Have you not read his [...]."
Delivered as ordered, lol. It never fails.
>Proponents point to a number of perceived similarities between extremes and allege that both tend to support authoritarianism or totalitarianism;
From my experience that is the case. Surprising amount of people on the far right and far left when they drift into talk of violence and disruption talk about the same acts against the same people.
To me, the greatest historical example has to be the fact that the furthest left government, and furthest right government, started World War II together.
I would love to hear anyone else's take on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...