And where do you place the people at the US Capitol on January 6th?
Did you assume I’d think otherwise?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
– 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."
Extremism is, broadly, extremism. Combating specific instances requires more nuance. But calling it out does not.
Whatever you read from this theory is, just like, your opinion, and nothing more.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ..
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not an insult. You would learn that there's no value in stating un unsupported opinion.