Horseshoe Theory β”‚β–ˆβ•‘β–Œ πš…π™΄πšπšˆ π™Έπ™Όπ™Ώπ™Ύπšπšƒπ™°π™½πšƒ π™³π™Ύπ™²πš‚βΉ

Horseshoe Theory β”‚β–ˆβ•‘β–Œ πš…π™΄πšπšˆ π™Έπ™Όπ™Ώπ™Ύπšπšƒπ™°π™½πšƒ π™³π™Ύπ™²πš‚βΉ

45 Replies to “Horseshoe Theory β”‚β–ˆβ•‘β–Œ πš…π™΄πšπšˆ π™Έπ™Όπ™Ώπ™Ύπšπšƒπ™°π™½πšƒ π™³π™Ύπ™²πš‚βΉ”

  1. This explains why so many of my "centrist" friends often share and repeat right wing memes and opinions. Well done Peter.

  2. I'm gonna go e my take b4 and after watching video as of now I believe there is some merit and the examples that come to mind are on foriegn policy where libertarian and anti war left agree to a large degree but dont come all the way together like a horseshoe and the same on the use of force by the state on citizens ,though I assume the libertarian wouldn't mind if a private security co. Did the same ,they also usually hold similar beliefs on drug laws and personal rights like sexuality, though again libertarian while not caring if you're gay also dont mind private co. Discriminating agaisnt you ..so not total agreement and for different reasons but similar overall outlook in those areas but on economic issues which I believe trump's ever other issue aside from climate change which is untangled in economics and that's why libertarians are dangerous cus they do get some things right and those things are very tangible and personal like owning guns or being gay or wanting to smoke weed or ending war but have the most dangerous economic platform…let's see if we agree and if you can sway me in anyway

  3. As someone who considers himself broadly on the left, but also somewhat centrist, I was hoping this video would challenge my beliefs and give me something new to consider, but I ultimately came away pretty disappointed. You didn't make a good-faith representation of the views of the people being targeted, you mostly just made fun of a bad chart pulled off of Google images.

    First of all, very few people who identify either strongly or weakly as 'centrist' would say that they believe that the truth or the best possible outcome always lies literally right in the middle of two opposing ideologies. It's usually fueled by skepticism that left-wing or right-wing ideological solutions can be trusted to solve every social problem optimally (or even particularly well) all of the time. Most of us have heard at least a handful of proposed ideas from both the left and the right and have thought "ok, that probably wouldn't go very well. Perhaps we shouldn't give that group free reign to make radical societal changes at their leisure." Another aspect of it may be a general support for democratic principles which say that government has some level of obligation to reflect in policy the wants and needs of all the people they represent, most of whom (at least in my country, the USA) do not currently identify as leftists.

    Regarding 'horseshoe theory' itself, it's a concept that has only a limited amount of validity, since there are certainly more axes on which the far left and the far right diverge than converge, but you totally glossed over the few points that cause it to resonate with people. On a small scale, it's substantiated by some of the social dynamics characteristic of both left- and right-wing groups: being very insular, believing that they're members of the small group who has seen through the mainstream cultural lies and unlocked the truth, and constantly competing to peacock the greatest ideological purity and extremity in views. The biggest one, however, is the historical use of totalitarian state violence to impose both Fascist and Communist political goals. You may argue, as you began to, that those groups weren't "true" left-wing regimes, but when people think of Communism, they think of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, and the historical record is not rich with long-lived left-wing non-totalitarian political systems you can use as counter-points.

    You can try to argue that there's a workable democratic form of Communism, but that would make your jocularity about political polarization feel pretty weird. Polarization wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it were between the 99% and the 1%, but the type of polarization we have isn't splitting 'the proletariat' from 'the bourgeoisie', it's splitting the proletariat a few different ways within itself. As a result we get exacerbated ideological bubbles, a decline in social trust, and arguably 'revenge votes', e.g. Trump. You may think something is good because it's radicalizing liberals (i.e. making them leftist), but if the same phenomenon is radicalizing conservatives, you're putting an awful lot of marginalized people at greater risk, so… that's probably bad.

    Oh, and while horseshoe theory is flawed at best, 'fish-hook theory' is hopefully a joke, because taken seriously it's really stupid. The idea implies that the centre-left is closer to fascism than conservatives are. Hopefully no one needs to explain what's wrong with that.

  4. I recognize that the horseshoe theory lacks a rational, empirical basis for it. But I do think it speaks to an underlying sense people have of the psychology exhibited by some fringed individuals. On both ends of the spectrum there are people inclined to believe only what they want to believe and nothing else. It isn't just that they're absolutist; they're egocentric as well. Their intuitive view of reality is their reality. Whether that reality contains elements of conservatism or liberalism is happenstance.

    The result is a mix of people, erroneously thought of as the converging horseshoe, who believe in government conspiracies, pseudoscience, alternative medicine and literal magic. What unites them isn't so much politics as it is delusion. Fantasy is what allows them to cope with the world. That's why they recoil so strongly when you try to press them with reason. To them, facts are an attack on their mental equilibrium. The truth is antithetical to their sense of wellbeing.

  5. The real problem with the left/right paradigm is that it leaves out other spectrums such as the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum.

  6. Jesus butt-fucking christ your misrepresentation of centrism is insane! Centrism is not about always finding compromise, it's about not going full tilt one way or the other. There are both left-wing and right-wing talking points that I agree with. It's possible to be pro-choice, environmentalist, want unions and regulations on industry, and pro-lgbtq+ rights without wanting to overthrow capitalism. In the same way one can be opposed to religiously motivated violence and mass immigration without falling down the rabbit hole of eugenics.

    Using your example of nazi or not nazi, 99% of people are gonna pick the non-nazi option. Although I'd argue that choice presents a false dichotomy in the context you gave it, because I can ask a similar question like "are you communist or not communist? Anarchist or not anarchist?" The idea of "not anarchist" isn't equivalent to nazi, but you're presenting it in a binary way to imply it is! A better example of the opposite of nazism would've been anarchism, with the centrist point being neither of them. Being "kinda nazi" is a fucking stupid idea that stems from your fundamental misunderstanding of centrism.

  7. You don't use a hammer to do the work of a wrench, nor the wrench to labor as a screwdriver. And yet, for the nail there is the hammer, for the screw the screwdriver etc. The machinations of State are much the same; Monetary policy, tax policy, you name it; are the tools of state and as every situation demands a different tool it would be foolish to insist the hammer is never useful. And now we come back to the issue of centrism. There is, I would argue, a "true" centrism which is apart from the " well both sides are right/wrong"… lets call is a phase. Most people will realize at some point ( often in their late teens – mid 20s) that this idea is unsustainable. Parodies of centrists often feature them standing in the middle of a nazi rally with a sign that says "lets compromise" and while you REALLY shouldn't think centrists actually think that way, it's not an unfair critique of the "everyone is right/wrong" model; and it's one that when confronted with alot of centrists just collapse to what ever side of the political spectrum they leaned towards anyways. ( "IS there a rest stop between here and the point!?") No model of political structure will be with out a progressive/conservative dynamic. In that dynamic, the Progressives and Conservatives will both have flaws and will often both have a good point; but usually not at the same time. The real world is nuanced, it's big and weird and for an example, let's talk about abortion!

    ( THERE ARE NO REST STOPS ON THIS ROAD!)
    A child when born is not capable of recognizing it self in a mirror. A newborn has no concept of object permanence and it does not start to form meaningful memories until a fair time after its actual birth. So is it REALLY human? You can argue it's not a full human ( I don't agree). But on the other side, the medical profession uses heartbeat or brain waves to determine if a human is still alive ( in the absence of both they are clinically dead.) That standard is also wildly impractical to apply to this topic. ( If your morals demand the ludicrous, you are morally shit. ) And so what we have is not a horseshoe, but two radical view points with logically valid ( valid here meaning internally consistent) but impractical arguments. There's a need to compromise because we have a believe that Humans (persons) are entitled to rights ( life,liberty, pursuit of happiness.) but we have a blurry line about when personhood starts. We have to draw the line SOMEWHERE between a clump of cells that the mother has the right to abort at any time for any reason; and a human being who has rights. There is a sensible place to draw the line, that being what's usually referred to as the viability stage, at the beginning of the third trimester. Only in America are so fucking off our rockers that this is a problem in our society. In Sweden for example, a woman is allowed to abort a pregnancy with no questions asked anytime up to the end of the 2nd trimester ( Note: I am not Swedish, but know and talk to Swedish people, so citation might be in order but I am too lazy to look for it.) After which you need permission from doctors ( a good reason) to abort a pregnancy. Hammer… Nail…

    Most issues in the real world are more like this than most people ( Americans esp.) realize. It's less about a right/left dynamic so much as it is a practical problem with a solution that no matter how you cut it is going to irritate both of the radicals. A centrist, the aforementioned " true" centrist is someone that understands and implements a political ideology that metaphorically sees the state and its operation as a machine which requires maintenance and repairs to function properly in metaphorical terms.

  8. Right: We should lock children of immigrants in cages.
    Left: We shouldn't lock children of immigrants in cages.
    Center: We can put some children of immigrants in cages.

  9. centrist extremists in the establishment democratic party gave us donald trump-
    they are a dangerous, powerful force that completely lacks self-awareness.

  10. I'm a centrist and I don't think this horseshoe was made by a centrist. It's "anti-SJW" propaganda. This thing places mainstream third-wave feminism, "post-modernism" (Not a thing unless you're talking about art. It's a thinly-veiled anti-Jewish fascist conspiracy talking point) and the "Regressive Left" (A useless catch-all term for everything from Stalinism to liberal democratic capitalist Europe's hate speech laws, which would defy placing it on a political spectrum) nearly at Communism. That's hyperbolic and ridiculous.

    I can't really help Peter if he feels like placing fascism and anarchism at opposite ends of a political spectrum is a microaggression, though. Are there people who are "sort-of Nazis?" Yes! There were lots of "sort of Nazis" in WWII, for example, the Italians and Hungarians. Modern conservatives often hold some of the same beliefs as the Nazis while anarchists will hold none of them.

    Organizing political ideology by both the amount of liberty and free agency allowed and by economic ideology is better though, otherwise its not very useful. Is an anarcho-capitalist right-wing or left-wing for example? Is Stalinism left-wing or right-wing?

  11. 5:58 LoL yea I always wondered if this was the case. I like to say stuff like "look everyone! I have on official big boy suitβ„’ and I still have some special paper leftover!"

  12. i wouldn't fully write off 'islamism' as non-existent. it's usually defined as strifing for full implementation of sharia law, like ISIS for example, in contrast to just 'islam'. many muslim deem islamism unacceptable. to simply call it 'fascism' doesn't really help, although i accept the reasoning for this. nonetheless, one of my fave videos here.

  13. The idea that every political ideology on ond side as a clear counterpart on the other sounds kinda dumb to me

  14. Centrists have always been the true obstacle/enemy for progressive change. I despise them more than right wing nut jobs.

  15. Okay, so… 33 minutes of strawmanning the horseshoe theory.

    Extremists are twats — doesn't matter if they're on the right or the left. And extremist anarcho-communists behave exactly like fascists. That is not only a centrist position. It's the position of every person with two eyes and a brain, and it is as plain as the nose on the face of a clown.

    (Zero respect for Antifa or Alt-right.)

  16. I mostly like your videos, but I have to say that I find this one… Off-base. You make a good point: "centrist" probably isn't a meaningful political designation over the course of time, because societal norms shift and the mainstream "left" and "right" are artificial distinctions which are always in flux. However, when people use this label in the context of current political frameworks in the U.S. (or many other countries), it doesn't necessarily entail many of the positions you ascribe to it.

    Sure, the shitty horseshoe diagram you found suggests some pretty superficial, self-serving, and status-quo-reinforcing nonsense. Sure, some self-stated centrists might support it; "there are some shitty leftists", as you point out, and the same is true of centrists. However, at its base centrism can simply be " acceptance… of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy" (per Wikipedia); it can be a belief that hierarchical structures and a degree of tribalism will always be endemic to humanity, and this may not be completely avoidable in an imperfect world, but that the severity of inequality should be limited or reduced. It can just as easily be pragmatic socialism as cautious conservatism.

    Centrism, when people ascribe it to themselves, isn't always at some arbitrary dead-centre point on a spectrum between socialism and fascism. It can be at a centre-point between anarcho-communism (maximum freedom, maximum equality, rejection of all state apparati, extremely idelaistic) and nationalist authoritarianism (maximum repression and conformity, maximum hierarchy, totality of state apparati, brutally and horrifyingly pragmatic to the exclusion of any moral ideal outside of the state's will). The entire thing is rooted in the somewhat simplistic and increasingly-inapplicable |left-right" political dichotomy, but you're employing the strawman falalcy rather liberally when you attribute some of your talking points to centrism as core tenets, and positioning it where you choose to do so.

    Also: "Islamism" is a (admittedly, similarly imprecise and backwards) term for "Political Islam", "ISmalmic Fundamentalism" or… Essentially, "Theocracy, Muslim-Style". It's definitely a real thing, though. Countries practice it. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Brunei could all be said to employ some form of this philosophy, and Taliban and Islamic State groups wish to form (and sometimes have formed) states based around it. Left-wing leaders and ideologues HAVE implemented policies not unlike those of nationalists and fascists in service to "the common people" or "the global revolution". Even if they were "just pretending" to be leftist, and that wasn't "real" communism, saying that they don't count on these grounds sounds a lot like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me, and not dissimilar to "white nationalists" and "identitarians" who claim they are somehow different from white supremacists or fascists because those ideologies "Aren't true white nationalism" and are instead something different and more extreme being unfairly lumped in with them. You're much better than these people, let me be clear–you're not moral equivalents with them, because, you're right, horseshoe theory is a crock of false equivalency bullshit and their ideology is fundamentally rooted in way worse and more harmful ideas. However, in this video, you are making a very similar, and SIMILARLY FLAWED, argument to defend a very broad "left" camp that includes a wide range of belief structures with very different ideas about (among otehr things) the role of the state and the rights and freedoms of the individual.

  17. Question to Peter: are modern day philosophers thought leaders? For example Peterson, Zizek, youtube personalities like Olly from Philosophy Tube?

  18. I tell my friends all the time being a friend and being friendly are two different things, I'm not always the friendliest but id take a bullet for my friends. I FUCKING LOVE MALCOLM X

  19. The horseshoe theory demonstrates how two polar opposite sides are using the exact same idea but for different ends. Feminists and incels both believe that the opposite gender is to blame for pretty much everything thats wrong with their life. The far left and the far right both base their beliefs on the concept of white privilege. The far left thinks white people should feel guilty because they are inherently better off simply for being white. The far right thinks white people should be proud that they are inherently better off simply for being white. While they have opposite end goals both ideologies have the exact same core concept. The exact same racist concept. The concept of a centrist portrayed in this video is ridiculous. Centrists dont take a position directly in the center, they support policies from either side as long as they make sense, and disagree with ones that dont. Both the left and the right like to tell everyone else how to live their life, what they can do and what they are allowed to say. Centrists dont like this. Right now the left is the one doing it the most, so thats why it seems like the center is so against them. In the 80's and early 90's it was the conservatives the center was against.

  20. I don't understand the way you frame centrist tendencies. Why did you frame the tendency toward a "center" as positioning oneself on a spectrum of reactions regarding single issues (like when you said the center of "black people can vote, and black people can't vote" is "black people can kinda vote"), rather than positioning it as choosing certain propositions and rejecting others from various ideologies (for instance: someone who might say "We should loosen banking regulations, and institute an income ceiling and UBI.")?

  21. Centrists always side with the Right, which means they're not Centrists…
    Before The Nazis the centrist government hired mercenaries to kill the Communists. I think they're partly to blame for the rise of Fascism.

  22. The frog is at the center of the hoof. It's the one area of the hoof the horse really gets hurt when something pushes on the frog making the horse limp.

  23. Centrism is just a rejection of the ideological extremes in any given political system. If you lived in a communist country, you'd be a centrist communist, if you live in the USA you're a centrist of the USA-system. It is somewhat conservative only in the traditional sense. Being a centrist generally implies that you're for the reform and strengthening of existing institutions as opposed to blazing new trails, new services that can have meaningful impacts on people's lives can be developed.

  24. This is actually an eye opening documentary for me. I never thought how the Overton window kept moving right, or how the right kept getting more nazi (oh, I'm sorry, ethnostate advocates) in America. The center exists to halt progress, and the right seeks to regress. A deadly combination indeed.

  25. As someone who considers himself a left-leaning centrist, I can see many valid points in your video, despite not thinking you have accurately described my position. You might be describing the position of real people, but not me. I also think that the political spectrum is too multidimensional to put in a single continuum. You can find anarchists on both the left and the right, for example. On the right we have Anarcho-capitalists, who want the market to dictate everything and be entirely unregulated, which is terrifying, and on the left we have those anarchists who see any kind of hierarchical structure as being inherently inequitable and thus see government as part of the problem. In that sense, I suppose you could make a horseshoe argument, but that's not the whole picture. You can also find elements on the right and left who would impose very powerful and highly restrictive governments. This says to me that such elements are not a part of the left-right axis, but are instead on a separate axis which is independent of the left and right.

    Being a left-leaning centrist – that is, roughly speaking, someone who believes there should be some degree of capitalism within society, but with a minimum of guaranteed necessities such as food, shelter, and education to everyone regardless of who they are, and with restrictions on the influence the wealthy can exert over society – I find myself in a country which is increasingly leaning right-wing, and thus find myself more closely allied with the left. I don't move with the window (or, at least, I try not to), but my position relative to the window does move, and I will stand with the side which wants to pull that window closer to my political views. For now, I am an ally of the left, but should things ever swing in the opposite direction, I will be an ally of the right. This is not to say that I would ever want to ally myself with neo-nazis, fascists, or authoritarians, but I would ally myself with those whose political views are to the right of my own in the event that the politics in my country swung too far to the left for my tastes.

    Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between Islamism, Islam, and Muslims. Islam is the religion which follows the teachings of the prophet Muhammad. Muslims are the adherents to that religion. Islamism is the religio-political movement which promotes the spread of Islam through conquest, violence, and forced conversion. Islamism is extremely right-wing, and is led by the most fundamentalist elements of Islamic thought, embodying is racism, sexism, violence vs the LGBT community, and authoritarianism. Not all Muslims are Islamists, however, as they interpret and practice their religion differently.

    Despite all my criticisms, I do appreciate your video, and I think you made some excellent points in it. I enjoy hearing perspectives which disagree with mine, as it keeps me from finding myself in an echo-chamber where everyone thinks the same as me, and gives me an opportunity to re-examine my beliefs.

  26. Good to know that you agree with Francis Galton large groups of people are stupid. Of course he was wrong. Its also good you don't understand what a median actually is or why some things are normally distributed. But that is a dry sorta complaint, lets be more illustrative.

    Here lets do the impossible, lets "Sorta Nazi"

    This is the offical Nazi Party Platform
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

    It contains such radical and obviously evil statements as "All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
    " and "The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
    " as well as "We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
    " and "We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare."

    Oh shit mate, you already agree with 25% of the Nazi Party Platform.

    How about "Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
    " or this one here "In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
    " Or how about "We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
    "

    Those dastardly national socialists. Opposing debt slavery and war profiteering, wanting social safety nets and outlawing child labor.

    All you need to do to make the Nazi Platform socially acceptable is delete half their points the digusting stuff like "Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.
    " and it is really easy to get a reasonable take on the party.

    Actually…. now that I think about it… it seems that the only difference between the National Socialists and the Socialists is that the nationalism….. Oh shit its a horseshoe…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *