Yes, that’s the horseshoe theory. More broadly they want the demise of the current political system so their system can arise from the ashes, like every extremist movement
Well then horseshoe theory isn’t about leftism and it’s basically just wrong, which was the point of me quoting that person’s own link back at them. If your point is that unhinged extremists with no coherent ideology tend towards a horrifying common denominator regardless of their starting point, then that’s true, but it says nothing about principled socialists.
There are plenty of revolutionary ideologies that do not fit within horseshoe theory, as political scientists have pointed out. If you want to say they’re wrong you’ll need something more than just what you reckon.
The horseshoe theory is not real theory, it’s an observation that people on the extremes will have contrarian views, so they agree with each other on accident
Right, so it’s basically just bullshit, and it doesn’t apply to anyone principled anyway. Although most people who talk about horseshoe theory try to use it to discredit people on the left in general, whatever your walked-back version of it may be.
If you’re a tankie or a Nazi can you really be principled? Even a principled racist would not be a Nazi because Jews contributed a huge amount to science and art. A principled racist would say Jews are good because they accomplish a lot and have higher IQs. A principled Socialist wouldn’t support Russia because Russia is a country owned by oligarchs and is in no way Socialist.
This entire conversation started because a centrist attacked anyone not in the centre with horseshoe “theory”. Either everyone who isn’t in the dead centre - another dubious term that is actually synonymous with conservatism - is either a tankie or a nazi, or we’re right to criticise the use of the term in this context.
If you use it to mean all extreme positions, you’re still wrong because tankies aren’t leftists. I was conceding a small kernel of truth to the idea, not that the idea itself is an acceptable way to analyse politics.
Also “higher IQ”? That’s pretty much just a racist position, and I don’t agree there’s such a thing as a “principled racist” since race itself is a bullshit concept.
Race is not scientific, so you don’t get to racism through study and learning, you get there by believing bullshit propaganda, like for instance that some races are inherently more intelligent than others, like you apparently believe. EDIT: If you don’t believe it and are just using it as an example of racist beliefs that’s unclear, but it’s not that relevant to my point.
And you’ve totally dropped the subject of the horseshoe. Sounds like you’ve noticed that walking back what it stands for makes no sense in light of how it was used in this thread.
The horseshoe subject is not that interesting, can’t add much to that discussion. I’m using the example is racist beliefs to show you can be internally consistent as a racist.
And a consistent racist would point out the book The Bell Curve as proof of his beliefs. I still can’t see any inconsistency of this world view. There was a debate between a Twitter racist and a liberal dude and they never got anywhere. I’m not sure if you’re interested in following this thread, though
Yes, that’s the horseshoe theory. More broadly they want the demise of the current political system so their system can arise from the ashes, like every extremist movement
Well then horseshoe theory isn’t about leftism and it’s basically just wrong, which was the point of me quoting that person’s own link back at them. If your point is that unhinged extremists with no coherent ideology tend towards a horrifying common denominator regardless of their starting point, then that’s true, but it says nothing about principled socialists.
There are plenty of revolutionary ideologies that do not fit within horseshoe theory, as political scientists have pointed out. If you want to say they’re wrong you’ll need something more than just what you reckon.
The horseshoe theory is not real theory, it’s an observation that people on the extremes will have contrarian views, so they agree with each other on accident
Right, so it’s basically just bullshit, and it doesn’t apply to anyone principled anyway. Although most people who talk about horseshoe theory try to use it to discredit people on the left in general, whatever your walked-back version of it may be.
If you’re a tankie or a Nazi can you really be principled? Even a principled racist would not be a Nazi because Jews contributed a huge amount to science and art. A principled racist would say Jews are good because they accomplish a lot and have higher IQs. A principled Socialist wouldn’t support Russia because Russia is a country owned by oligarchs and is in no way Socialist.
This entire conversation started because a centrist attacked anyone not in the centre with horseshoe “theory”. Either everyone who isn’t in the dead centre - another dubious term that is actually synonymous with conservatism - is either a tankie or a nazi, or we’re right to criticise the use of the term in this context.
If you use it to mean all extreme positions, you’re still wrong because tankies aren’t leftists. I was conceding a small kernel of truth to the idea, not that the idea itself is an acceptable way to analyse politics.
Also “higher IQ”? That’s pretty much just a racist position, and I don’t agree there’s such a thing as a “principled racist” since race itself is a bullshit concept.
To a principled racist race is not a bullshit concept, so they are entirely consistent
Race is not scientific, so you don’t get to racism through study and learning, you get there by believing bullshit propaganda, like for instance that some races are inherently more intelligent than others,
like you apparently believe.EDIT: If you don’t believe it and are just using it as an example of racist beliefs that’s unclear, but it’s not that relevant to my point.And you’ve totally dropped the subject of the horseshoe. Sounds like you’ve noticed that walking back what it stands for makes no sense in light of how it was used in this thread.
The horseshoe subject is not that interesting, can’t add much to that discussion. I’m using the example is racist beliefs to show you can be internally consistent as a racist.
And a consistent racist would point out the book The Bell Curve as proof of his beliefs. I still can’t see any inconsistency of this world view. There was a debate between a Twitter racist and a liberal dude and they never got anywhere. I’m not sure if you’re interested in following this thread, though