Hacker News Reader

Comment by HEmanZ | Hacker News Reader

Idk about what the actual objective comparison is, but around me (Capitol Hill, Seattle) many left anarchist types definitely threaten violence. I’m not sure they’d actually follow through and a lot of it is communist revolution larping, but there is probably something to it. Or at the very least they’d do things like hide violent fugitives.

Someone left-aligned (and acting alone, not an official terrorist group) assassinated Charlie Kirk in the US.

A group of left aligned people got in over their heads on a protest action and one shot a police officer.

My too-online left friends worship Luigi IRL, one even recently got a tattoo meant to reference him.

Right wing attacks used to be more common than left aligned ones in the US, but that trend has recently flipped: https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-politi...

I’m not convinced there are any real terrorist groups operating the way e.g the Weathermen were back in the 70s. But there is some kind of violent left tendency rising, and we could easily be headed that way.

View on HN

I don't see how there's any basis for concluding that Tyler Robinson is "left-aligned." He seems pretty apolitical. He did it to defend his girlfriend's honor, or something. If you think his dating preferences make him "left-aligned," that seems more revealing of your own leanings

"He seems pretty apolitical" is a crazy thing to say about someone who assassinated someone for political reasons.

The politics are not super clear, if there are any. I think Kirk‘s assassination is much more akin to John Lennon’s murder. It seems nuts to assassinate someone so political for apolitical reasons, but that is exactly what happened to Lennon.

> I think Kirk‘s assassination is much more akin to John Lennon’s murder.

Not even close.

I’m using left broadly here. I myself am well “on the left” in the USA.

> He did it to defend his [boy]friend's honor, or something.

He murdered Charlie for his boyfriend? What are you talking about? No such accusation has been made. You're literally just inventing stuff.

And where do you place the people at the US Capitol on January 6th?

In the same practical bucket. Horseshoe theory [1]. (Anyone willing to use violence to promote their politics has more akin with others willing to cross that threshold than with anything in the normal political universe.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Horseshoe theory is not a serious theory. Nobody who takes political science seriously puts any merit into horseshoe theory, any more then they put in the horoscope or the predictions of Nostradamus.

There is zero evidence that horseshoe theory describes our political reality. It is merely a convenient narrative among centrists (or even right-wingers) simply because it “feels right” and is therefor self-evident, i.e. right because of the vibes.

You’re saying the tactics of the far left and far right don’t bear striking resemblance in a democratic system? (Their values, populations and guiding ideologies are obviously different. But they’re also heterogenous within group.)

Extremism is, broadly, extremism. Combating specific instances requires more nuance. But calling it out does not.

I am saying that this theory only exists as a meme. It has exactly zero academic rigor and should be taken as seriously as any conspiracy theory or crackpot theory you find online.

Whatever you read from this theory is, just like, your opinion, and nothing more.

> Whatever you read from this theory is, just like, your opinion

Sure. It’s shorthand for illiberal interests being broadly similar, something that does have explanatory value.

> should be taken as seriously as any conspiracy theory or crackpot theory you find online

Do you have a good academic refutation?

It is a shorthand for what you think is similar. There are no evidence for this theory.

This theory is easily testable. If this theory were true, we would have evidence for it. We don‘t. Even your own link clearly states that. Therefor we don‘t have any reason to believe it is true, other then our own biases.

> This theory is easily testable

In what form? Who has tested it?

The refutations that point out the same people aren’t swinging between far left and right is usual social science bullshittery—nobody claimed that. The actual claim—my claim—is around tactics. I am not aware of an academic refutation of this.

I'd ordinarily be sympathetic to the argument that calling it a theory is nonsense. But (a) I didn't name it, (b) it's a term of popular discourse and (c) political science is full of hypotheses branded as theories.

This is all explained in the link you yourself posted. It also cites several studies which debunk the theory.

> my claim—is around tactics. I am not aware of an academic refutation of this.

This is Motte and Baily. But still, this weaker claim is also testable. Define your tactics, and count the occurrences. If horseshoe theory is right, then the far (sic) left and the far right should have a similar number of occurrences, either one higher then that of the political center. You are making a testable claim, then test it, otherwise I have no reason to believe it, and neither does academia (and they don‘t).

If you are speaking tactics. The far (sic) left is known to engage in mass demonstration, direct action and mutual aid. Direct action includes stuff like blocking highways, blocking shipping docks, general strikes, etc. when does the far right ever engage in those sorts of tactics? Mutual aid includes stuff like anti-racism workshops, food not bombs, doctors without borders, bail funds, heck Alcoholics Anonymous is an Anarchist Mutual Aid organization. When does the far right ever use mutual aid as a tactic?

The only type of shared tactic that the far left and the far right engage with is political violence and if you count the occurrences of you will see that the far right has far more occurrences then the far left. Heck if you count state violence as political violence by the center you would find that the center is the most violent political ideology by far.

> cites several studies which debunk the theory

But it doesn’t? Those studies refute specific interpretations, in my mind comically over-specific ones.

> When does the far right ever use mutual aid as a tactic?

Le Bastion. Welfare chauvinism more broadly. The oath keepers running around doing disaster recovery and whatnot.

> only type of shared tactic that the far left and the far right engage with is political violence and if you count the occurrences of you will see that the far right has far more occurrences then the far left

Fair and agreed.

Anecdata: Bannon and Sanders speaking at the same event against data centers. Nonviolent, even. Illiberal? Maybe

Now I hear rumors of breaking "the" political firewall (ie, gap in horseshoe?) in France and Germany. Of reviving DDR style parties in East Germany that can work with AfD. Incoming data ..

> Those studies refute specific interpretations, in my mind comically over-specific ones.

That is the thing about science, of which Political science is definitely a science. Science engages with concrete and testable hypothesis. If a scientist wants to engage seriously with horseshoe theory then they have to have a concrete interpretation of it. Otherwise the scientist ends up being like Nostradamus and just put up intentionally vague predictions that will become true if you just interpret events exactly such that they line up with the vague prediction. And at that point, they are no longer a scientist, but a crook.

If horseshoe theory is stated in such a way that it becomes unfalsifiable then it is not a scientific theory. In which case it is still an unserious theory, worthy as only the meme that it is.

> Science engages with concrete and testable hypothesis

Sure. You raised mutual aid as a tactic. I shared examples of it being common in both camps.

> science, of which Political science is definitely a science

It can be. A lot of academic political science is not. The refutations on the Wikipedia are not really a refutation of the hypothesis in its strongest form, they’re akin to refuting evolution because your cat’s kittens still look like cats.

> If horseshoe theory is stated in such a way that it becomes unfalsifiable

It’s not. Political violence, conspiracy theorizing on social media and illiberalism around free speech are falsifiable claims.

Indeed. My point has always been that this theory is in fact falsifiable, and yet nobody has manage to come up with a convincing test results in the theory’s favor. This is enough for me to deem it unserious as an actual theory and relegate it to meme status.

As for shared tactics (e.g. mutual aid), the fact that occurrences exist is not enough to convince me (nor academia). Occurrences will exist of most tactics across the political spectrum. What you need is to tally the number of occurrences and show a statistically significant deviation between the center, but insignificant deviation between the far left and the far right.

If you want to be even more rigorous you would put severity weights on the occurrences. For example, blocking a weapons shipments to Israel by shutting down a port for 5 days would of high severity in the direct action category; but shouting slogans at a politician during a town hall would have low severity in the same category. Similarly conspiracy theorizing tends to be extremely common on the right (not even the far right; just the right) but it also exists on the left, and even the center (see e.g. Blue MAGA), however the pervasiveness of said conspiracy theories tends to be very limited on the left and on the center (less common * less severe), however on the right these conspiracy theories are extremely common and—equally importantly—pervasive (more common * more severe).

I‘m not gonna do this study, I don’t have the means nor the skills to do it. But somebody can. And until somebody does and shows convincing results, with a replicatable methodology, and independents teams replicates these results a couple of times, I will remain unconvinced that this theory is a serious theory with considering as anything more then a meme.

> What you need is to tally the number of occurrences and show a statistically significant deviation between the center

Has someone shown far-left groups tend to have mutual aid?

> I will remain unconvinced that this theory is a serious theory with considering as anything more then a meme

Sure. That's an opinion. You're allowed to say there is no rigorous evidence to support horseshoe theory, and I'd agree with you. What you can't claim is it's bullshit or has been debunked–we don't know.

> Has someone shown far-left groups tend to have mutual aid?

Find your nearest Food not Bombs stall and see for your self. I don‘t know whether anyone has ever done a survey about it. I am not a political scientist. But anarchist literature is filled to the brim about mutual aid. So at least the far-left talks a hell lot about mutual aid.

I know the political center engages a lot with mutual aid as well though. Doctors without borders (probably left wing; lets be honest), Alcoholics Anonymous (apolitical), and even Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library (center for sure) are all mutual aid groups which many centrists participate in.

I would actually argue that even though mutual-aid is central to far-left (particularly anarchist) ideology, it has been embraced by more centrist/liberal ideology, and is popular from the left to the center. If somebody has done a tally, I would be super interested in seeing the numbers if this is true or not.

---

EDIT: Not a tally (and I’ve only skimmed the article) but some political scientists have similar speculations about mutual aid being widely practiced.

https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/soc...

This paper discusses the potential that mutual aid is in fact left wing in nature, but in practice it is often free from political ideology

> Mutual aid is a practice that might struggle against established power(s) but as we have shown, many forms of mutual aid may tactically engage with existing institutions, and other forms of change making and organising, to achieve their aims. This means that mutual aid, while always prefigurative, might or might not be informed by an anarchist ideology.

> the far right has far more occurrences (of political violence) then the far left

In the United States, in the last decade, obviously not. There’s been a spate of high profile assassination attempts by the left, nationwide rioting for BLM and waves of vigilante violence against ICE, whereas the far right is… the capital riot and the guy that attacked Paul Pelosi.

> waves of vigilante violence against ICE

This has never happened. ICE systematically breaking the law, especially when it comes to American citizens, on the other hand, counts as far-right violence.

> whereas the far right is… the capital riot and the guy that attacked Paul Pelosi

And Gretchen Whitmer. Neo nazis in Charlottesville. Militias like Oath Keepers. The entire capital riot group getting blanket pardons. And that’s just America.

Extremism is predominantly a far-right problem right now. Anyone claiming otherwise is speaking beyond the data.

> This has never happened.

Yes it has. Vigilantes coordinated in Signal chats to spread guides to interfering with law enforcement via "de-arresting" people, used SUVs to block police offers, one armed man attacked an officer detaining a woman and another drove over an officer. Enforcing immigration law is a normal practice and is not "far right".

I already discussed the capital rioters, and imprisoned non violent rioters did obvously deserve a pardon. Sure, add Gretchen Whitmer.

Who are the "Oath Keepers"? I don't think anyone I know on the left or the right has ever heard of them. Did they no anything noteworthy?

> Anyone claiming otherwise is speaking beyond the data.

You also completely ignored the assassinations and assassination attempts in your reply, which was telling.

Nobody cares. “Zero academic rigour” isn’t an argument. “Your opinion and nothing more” is exactly what most of your top level comments in this story are: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50093362.

You would learn a lot by attending a debate class at your local high school before returning to post.

> You would learn a lot by attending a debate class at your local high school before returning to post.

This is a very weird insult. We are not doing highschool debate here. I know for a fact that I am an exceptionally poor competitive debater (I tried it ones as a young adult and was thrown off by the easiest debate tactics). This is a tech forum of nerds who talk about nerdy subjects, in the hopes that we might entertain each other with interesting stuff. And in this subthread the nerdy subject is Horseshoe Theory, in which I share insights as a leftist, and as somebody that knows somewhat about the scientific method, and a tiny bit about political science (albeit via social psychology from my undergraduate degree).

What I care about is conveying my arguments. I don‘t care about debate tactics meant to throw my “opponent” off their guard, and score some points by a panel of judges.

> This is a very weird insult.

It's not an insult. You would learn that there's no value in stating un unsupported opinion.

Horseshoe theory is absolutely real.

Gosh, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm convinced! Thank you, blanket-assertion from internet rando!

"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the Devil; for which reason I have, long since, as good as renounced it."

– Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, describing how he stopped using sarcasm in his essays because it provokes hostility. He goes on describe the ironic person as a "pest to society."

That's super helpful. Thank you SO much.

I sincerely hope you found it more helpful than anyone found your own sarcastic tripe.

Have you read the comment this person is replying to, which also has zero evidence or reason?

The onus is on whoever presents the theory to provide evidence for it. This isn’t even the case of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” because horseshoe theory isn’t an “extraordinary claim”, it is a mundane claim and thus only require mundane evidence. However, as of today, not even mundane evidence has been provided to back up this theory.

What criteria would you accept as evidence? Because apparently the fact that the far-right and far-left often find themselves as strange bedfellows united against liberalism is, ostensibly, not evidence of the horseshoe theory as it's colloquially known.

If we are talking about strange bed-fellows, then I think the center is just as guilty as the far-left is. In Europe centrists government are just as likely to host MAGA officials, to agree with MAGA policy, or otherwise cater to the MAGA right. In the USA you will find centrists like Gavin Newsom go to far right podcasters such as the late Charlie Kirk, you will find very few politicians on the left (particularly on the far left; Kat Abughazaleh; Kashima Savant; etc.) doing the same.

But you asked me a clear question and I will give a clear answer: The gold standard is a peer reviewed study which demostrates with data and a replicatable methodology that certain political behavior has a statistically similar distribution on the two extremes of the political spectrum, but a statistically significant deviation of that distribution in the political spectrum. If such as study existed, and had been replicated a couple of times by independent team of researchers, also published in a peer-reviewed journal, then I would accept that horseshoe theory might be a serious theory, worthy of something more then the meme-status it currently holds.

> far right podcasters such as the late Charlie Kirk

oh dear. Before you discuss horseshoe theory you may wish to learn what the far right is.

> The gold standard is a peer reviewed study

Which would limit 'gold standard' political metadiscussion to left leaning academia. It almost sounds like capturing the narrative is your goal. How odd.

> left leaning academia

Is this a conspiracy theory I sense?

I am starting to suspect that if horseshoe theory were correct (it is not), you would find yourself agreeing with the far left much more then you would like to admit.

---

And to any third parties reading this. I am on the left of the political spectrum for sure (an anarchist), and given nailer post here and elsewhere in this thread, it is very likely they are on the far-right. Do you honestly believe me and nailer have more in common then e.g. me and JumpCrisscross (who started this subthread) and seems to be in the center politically?

> > > left leaning academia

> Is this a conspiracy theory I sense?

Do you think academia is not left leaning? :D

Yes anyone that disagrees with you clearly on the far right. 10/10 solid gold there.

> The onus is on whoever presents the theory to provide evidence for it.

No, the person that makes any argument must provide evidence for it. You are the person that suggested there is no connection between the far left and the far right. Support your case or stop posting.

I don’t know what “real” horseshoe theory is.

What people I see are usually referring to is that the far right and far left end up being fundamentally anti-liberal, and in their anti-liberal beliefs they more closely resemble each other (meet back up on the horse shoe) than they do the mainstream liberal left/right.

Amazing, you disagree. Only people you don’t like support this concept but they have no reason to. Solid rationale there.

Easy example: left wing racism against Jewish people uses the same words (‘zios’) and same conspiracy theories (‘dead babies’) as the far right does. The left also now bizarrely supports Islam which an is extreme conservative movement.

That would be right wing political violence.

Did you assume I’d think otherwise?

Figure 4 shows left-wing political violence completely flat with a 1 year decrease in right wing violence as the basis for your “flipped” narrative. Table 1 shows the last 10 years highlighting 152 right wing attacks causing 112 deaths and 35 left wing attacks causing 13 deaths…

I don’t think OP made a claim of similar prevalence. Just that we have legitimately threatening elements on both the far/anarchist left and far/faschist right.

You quoted the "trend has recently flipped" but the graph showing the total numbers show right wing violence is still by far the majority, and the 2025 datapoint was incomplete.

> My too-online left friends worship Luigi IRL

And? When you see systemic/societal killing regularly, are we supposed to clutch pearls when one very very rich and powerful guy dies?

> got in over their heads on a protest action

Yeah, two small groups that weren't connected were all made an example of.

> Someone left-aligned

Total conjecture.

The weather underground accidentally killed more of their own than they did in their actual bombings. They went after property. Right wing terror goes after soft targets like kids and worshipers.

Does any of this actually address what I said that rightwing terror groups are going completely unbothered?

There is a lot of misinformation in this post that is parroted from right-wing propaganda channels. I know we are not supposed to engage in ideological battles here on HN, so I am not going to try to convince anyone here. Simply try to fact check any of the individual claims here by a simple web-search, and the whole argument will fall apart on factual ground very quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com