Do you have any real arguments against the horseshoe theory except "le horseshoe theory hurr durr"?
Both of the typical flawed political,social,economical parties are able to justify their existence because of the other party exists. Take one out and the other one will not survive. Doesnt matter if it is right wing vs left wing, socialism vs capitalism, fascism vs communism etc.
Other urls found in this thread:
zippycatholic.wordpress.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Just that people need to remember there's a FUCKING GAP between the two ends.
And those are two false ends anyways. They limit you between these things, and whatever you can combine inbetween.
It's a result of binary thinking and a lack of interest in actually dealing with the arguments of your opponents.
This is less a real theory and more a disguised rhetorical means of dismissing people.
Is that a sophisticated version of "hurr durr le horseshoe"? Post an example so I can understand.
Someone related toppic.
Did you notice that whenever there is talk about centrism everyone comes out of their hole to shit talk it like you cuold not make a decision? Always the shit like then we only kill half of them so both sides or happy.
This is total bullshit and not what's it about. It is realpolitik where you look for every problem individually instead of just folowing a general ideolgy.
Why do so many people don't get that?
zippycatholic.wordpress.com
Liberalism is self-contradictory and doesn't actually exist. Horseshoe theory presupposes that liberalism vs authoritarianism is the only important political axis. In reality, liberalism isn't real. Horseshoe theory is a vain and futile attempt by retarded centrists to justify their lack of real principles.
Because it is just
>side I belong to is in the middle
>two sides I don't like are at the end
>because I disagree with them they are the same
Ie
>Center: NatSoc, wants to secure the existance of white people
>One end: Sjw, doesn't want to
>Other end: Skeptics, doesn't want to
>therefore skeptics are just sjws
Horseshoe theory is a classic example of getting fooled in high-dimensional sample spaces, where our typical intuitions break down. There are more ways that the far left and far right are different than the same, but because of the large number of variables needed to describe complex, social ideas, it is easy to cherry-pick a subset that makes them look similar.
People do this A LOT. Once you learn to recognize it (read up on "curse of dimensionality") you will see it everywhere and be very sad.
Stefan Molyneux believes in most of the same premises as most of the alt right but is an anarchist. Sargon strawmans so-called race realism as believing blacks are stupid and that it leads to some authoritarian belief system. he deflects whenever empirical facts are brought to bear and invokes horse shoe. Never seen him tackle those who believe in individualism but also recognize, on the basis of empirical data, that certain ethnic groups care about it. Recognizing that the universe algorithmically favors survivors and coming to the conclusion you need a certain population to preserve individualism does not mean you're meeting communists in some horseshoe.
It's very similar to the distinction between war and peace time rules. You don't fight wars with peace time rules, nor do you govern in times of peace as if you're at war. Dismissing proper distinctions and then saying that establishing temporary curfews, let's say, during times of war makes you the equivalent of some fascist who rules that way in perpetuity is insulting.
Horseshoe is the concoction of the moderate whose only interest is in striking the posture of moral and intellectual superiority.
The theory is based on the principle that Nazism is a right-wing ideology, which it isn't.
You can't be right-wing and a revolutionary at the same time.
...
>try to model/understand the ideal world with only a limited sample size
>focus too much on one sample point (individualism, far left, far right, etc...), model breaks down
"horseshoe theory" is a better model, but it's still pleb level primitive.
Yeah, Nazism is kind of a hybrid ideology. It's right wing in the sense that it is nationalist (although its imperial tendencies under Hitler contradict that) but its left wing economically.
Communism differs in being an internationalist doctrine which is why it's the ultimate in left wing ideologies to date.
But if you're a nationalist, not an imperialist, and economically libertarian more or less, like most of the race realists I know then you're no where near meeting in some authoritarian middle.
The problem with people like Spencer is less their 'philosophy' and more that his premises are faulty. There's no reason to engage in philosophical discourse when you can beat someone on points of fact. This is something these youtube amateurs don't seem to understand. Spencer is simply wrong about white nationalism existing and doesn't seem to realize a white ethnostate isn't even an ethnostate. It's a pan racial pipe dream.
Nazis were also Meliorists. Traditionally, conservatives have been opposed to Meliorism.
I think what really bothers me about horse shoe is it's a result of people not practicing the principle of charity. It's quite the opposite. I regularly see these people taking the worst possible interpretations possible. I'd like to see them try and steelman too but that'd take a miracle.
Actually I feel like adding something here. The alt right I think gets tired of people treating them dishonestly and it breeds resentment which creates a negative irrational response which in return gets peolpe attacking them for their response and then it cycles out of control into a shit storm.
Witness how differently they treat Sargon in contrast to someone like Styx who is infinitely more honest and fair in his dealings with them.
>Do you have any real arguments against the horseshoe theory except "le horseshoe theory hurr durr"?
It's not others job to disprove your gay theory. It's your job to prove it and saying that there are two or more sides to an issue doesn't prove anything.
Also, kys meme flag faggot.
You dont need horseshoe theory to do that and horseshoe theory is not only applied when you want to do that.
A proper example. You have a feudal village, the villagers which produce, the overseers that keep the villagers from revolting, and the lord that gives stability to the overseers. The lord takes his tribute in taxes and the overseers take it like it in checks from the taxes.
If left wing is voting for the overseers (who need the lord) and right wing is voting for the lord (who needs the overseers) then how exactly is the whole village operating any different when you vote left wing or right wing?
If you disagree with it it means you are stating something, you need to prove your statement as much as I do faggot.
Horseshoe theory is assigned based on arbitrary characteristics, such as complex political positions being reduced to an arbitrary linear axis, and it's meaningless as an argument. For example, from Amos Yee's perspective, everyone who doesn't support pedophilia is the same. That means that in Yee's horseshoe almost the entire political spectrum, aside from him, is the same (SJWs still oppose pedophilia, right?)
it only makes sense if your concept of the political axis is fucking retarded
if you have a political spectrum that is a line, there can only be one metric
so there is only one thing that is more and less of
the only thing that makes sense for a single axis political spectrum is to have one side be absolute government power, and the opposite side be absolute lack of government power
God damn, kid, you just created the stupidest hypothetical. Feudal serfs are voting? And it's a hypothetical set up to make you correct.
Why did you waste anyone's time making this shit topic?
That is not horseshoe. That is taking a drop from the lake and saying the rest of the lake doesnt exist.
Horseshoe would be:I support pedophilia vs pedophilia doesnt even exists. Both result in pedos getting their way.
Unless the goverment doesnt take taxes when welfare is in place then Id say we have the version of my example in place, but based on soft power and not hard power. Give your realistic example on why it is wrong you fucking retard.
I notice that your argument relies on real world consequences brought on by specific ideological positions.
An alt righter could easily say centrists who believe in allowing multiple ethnicities that don't really care about democracy will result in the same consequences as what SJWs want. Demographics are demographics.
>Do you have any real arguments against the horseshoe theory except "le horseshoe theory hurr durr"?
Yes the fact that you can make a horseshoe with anything and then switch around all parts of that horseshoe and still have it work
And this is precisely why horse shoe breaks down btw. Most of the people arguing for maintaining specific ethnic ratios in their population are doing so because they believe it is necessary for the survival of liberty, not because they want to destroy it. This is an argument over whose vision is correct being recast as a moral argument which ultimately it isn't. It's between two groups who kind of want the same thing but see two very different realities. And I'd argue the centrists are just plain empirically wrong.
>hurr durr horse shoe theory
Horse shoe theory proponents do a good enough job hurr durring on their own. I don't need to help them along. They're inconsequential.
>That is not horseshoe. That is taking a drop from the lake and saying the rest of the lake doesnt exist.
Yeah it is a horseshoe. In Yee's horseshoe, you have one axis (support to pedophilia) and from Yee's perspective, on that axis, almost any arbitrarily picked 2 factions are the same, regardless of their distance on other issues
I already determined that you can't read, no need to belabor the point.
Is that centrism or left wing? Sounds like left wing to me. Support multiracialism vs Race doesnt exist only money. If I support hippies or if I support corporate upper class that wants cheap labor isnt it the same result? Wouldnt centrism opposed to both ends of the false dilenma?
Holy shit, a poorly drawn mspaint image with text vomited on it.
My noggin is joggin.
What is the Center? If you think it's classic liberalism and Hoppe, I got bad news for you. Actual classic liberals in Europe wanted personal liberties for straight white males only. Liberalism was instrumental in both non-white slavery and colonialism while countries that didn't have liberalism (like Russia and China) had much less race, gender and class disparity among the commoners (everyone below the nobility was considered subhuman and without any rights).
Let's see Sargoy being historically and intellectually honest for a change and recall who the voting rights and the personal liberties were intended for by classic liberal philosophers.
Since I'm reading the posts in here you're demonstrably wrong. You have no need to continue. Trying to hurt someone's feelings is just a sign of cognitive dissonance.
>arguments against horseshoe theory: hurr durr horseshoe theory
>arguments in favor of horseshoe theory: hurr durr horseshoe theory
You need three points to have a horseshoe. You have those that support pedos and those who dont. How is that horseshoe?
What?
Did I break your coding or something?
You aren't comprehending, that's the difference. There are dogs better at this than you.
>There are dogs better at this than you.
There quite literally aren't. This is classic cognitive dissonance on display. All you can do is throw impotent insults around because you have to diminish someone whose arguments you can't refute.
This is b8 but I'll bite so the fucking sargoy boys can fuck off
The argument claims that the far-left (communism) is the same as the far-right (fascism) because they are both anti-individualist, collectivist based on race/class, and they are authoritarian.
This is the fish fallacy all over again.
>X has quality Y
>Z has quality Y
>therefore X is Z
Wrong again youtube.com
Personal liberties for straight white males only in europe sounds like centrism to me if you have liberties for everyone vs liberties for financial elite only as the two extremes. Both extremes would result in non-whites being in europe either by SJWs like you and their financial elite backer or by the finacial elite who wants cheap labor and their SJW backers.
>You need three points to have a horseshoe. You have those that support pedos and those who dont. How is that horseshoe?
And what are the three points in the original example? The whole point is that on both ends the different "points" start coalescing into one on some arbitrary axis
Tip for the future, insults really only work if you can mock some aspect of the person in which they take pride in. Or if you can identify some sort of deep seated insecurity. You've been able to do neither.
All you've done is convince yourself on no rational basis that people who you disagree with must be stupid therefore you're correct. Ultimately you're only damaging yourself here. And you're probably a teenager judging by your writing style.
>Left wing: all races without care for democracy get in
>Centrism: all races without care for democracy get in
Pick one
Let's see Sargoy argue for voting and personal rights for straight white males only. Until then the fake classic liberal can shut his dishonest revisionist gob.
>argument against horseshoe theory.
Horseshoes don't exist you fool. How would they tie the laces? With their little hoofs.
How about left, centre and right?
>capitalism will not survive without socialism
What the literal fuck are you talking about? Do you think about anything you say before saying it?
It's fun watching you fail to outperform dogs with the English language
...
The problem is that horseshoe theory falls for the left and right meme. There are hundreds of different ideologies and you can not put them on a single scale even if that scale is curved. Horseshoe theory actually simplifies it even more because the classic left and right meme actually acknowledges differences but horseshoe theory is all about "Every extreme is just the same so you should stay a radical censtrist." You can cherrypick a lot of Communism and Fascism to let them appear the same but in the end Fascism is hierachical while Communism is all about equality. If we add to this ideologies like Neo-Conservatism, Anarcho Capitalism, National Bolshevism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libetarianism, Anarcho Syndicalism, National Socialism and all the others then horseshoe theory completely fails to describe these.
While the classic left vs right meme is simply dividing people from different ideologies the horseshoe theory just wants everyone to be le entlightenened centrist.
And this is where you lost the argument
So you have fake token centrism while both extreme left and extreme right (elites) are dominant. Doesnt that kind of prove horseshoe theory?
I'm curious, what exactly do you think the argument was?
No.
Centrists never account for regression to the mean. And again, 'caring for democracy' is short hand for a wide swathe of characteristics. Even simple differences in career success based on diverging IQ averages creates resentments between groups and shifts voting patterns.
Just having a multi-ethnic polity creates certain anti-democratic tendencies in voters. Go read about Lee Kwan Yew sometime. He has a lot to say on the subject.
BRAAAAAP
Yes it's bullshit.
>if you're on the right and you don't agree with me you're shit
>if you're on the left and you don't agree with me you're shit
>everyone who doesn't agree with me is shit, it's horseshoe theory.
t.centrist
I said pick one you fucking shit. Either their policies are different or they are one and the same.
We can use those on Yee's horseshoe. Either that or pick any arbitrary points. For example, let's say that Yee is moderate on personal liberty. To him, Sargon and Hitler are on the opposite ends of that axis, but they're really the same since they both oppose pedophilia
Someday you'll get the last word and then you'll win by default. In fact, reply to this post and you can claim victory.
Say whatever you want.
Yes.
The Left destroys and the Right upholds. The Left is revolutionary and the Right is reactionary. These two ideas do not meet the more radical they become. They just get farther and farther apart. They don't need each other, and there is no center.
There is upholding the natural order, and there is destroying it.
That is all.
And here I tried treating you with some decency. How old are you?
Also, there's a distinct irony in demanding I 'pick one' in a topic about horse shoe theory.
Again. You fucking retard. They are the same to him not based on horse shoe theory. The fact that you announced that he is moderate on liberty counts for shit when you jugded them on if they are pedo or not.
here is a handy guide
...
I didn't define centrism, I asked you to define it, kike. I defined classic liberalism as it is, exclusionary based on race, gender and class. If you're calling yourself a classic liberal, you are saying that only white men should have the vote.
It works exactly the same but you're simply too retarded to understand it
Attempting to fit people on to these limited spectrums is always pointless. The tests for doing so are always biased and the criteria are always highly questionable.
Any their spawned from the left-right paradigm is useless like the paradigm itself.
So you can't articulate what the argue was? Maybe because you didn't understand it?
Looking at problems individually only creates more problems.
Who is the inboxer and who is the outboxer? The one that is fighting close in or the one that is fighting closing?
Anybody watch cernobitch, Canadian cuck and molymeme yesterday. Cernobitch spends his time whining about alt right to molymeme meanwhile molymeme is a race realist who at the end of the day supports a white ethnostate.
Far Left want (((Globalism)))
Far Right want Nationalism
Complete opposites.
>You can't be right-wing and a revolutionary
What utterly nonsensical personal definition of right-wing holds that to be true?
Let me correct that:
Who is the inboxer and who is the outboxer? The one that is fighting close in or the one that is fighting close?
What was that about sargoy then retard?
>There's no reason to engage in philosophical discourse
Stopped reading.
Sargoy calls himself a left-leaning centrist, retard. Are you him? I've rarely seen anyone else be so shit at debating
Far left want multiculturalism aka globalism and far right want cheap labor aka globalism.
And it is ID: kiiJLCKd who called him fake. Are you him? I've rarely seen anyone else be so shit at debating
Center is arbitrary and just means status quo. 100 years ago white nationalism was status quo and therefore center.
>And it is ID: kiiJLCKd who called him fake
oh no no no you're not from around here. shoo shoo sargoy shill
> ID kii
Reddit boomer kys
Left and right work as general categories but as soon as you try to turn it in to spectrum you'll fail.
Proponents of the horseshoe theory don't even seem to know what far-left and far-right actually describe.
I've noticed its mostly Anglos, United Statistians that think like that.
He called him fake and I agreed retard.
Far right do not want cheap labour. They want their nations to be for their own people in every affair and policy. It's ultimately protectionism. Why should we spend billions importing non whites to do jobs that "[insert nation] can't do" due to skill shortage. You instead spend that money on training of the youth to fill the skills gap. If the youth are too lazy, institute a National Service to drill military discipline into them. The traitors at the top are importing these people without thinking long term of the many consequences it leads to and as we have seen the consequences are all negative.
Cheap labour is Globalist thinking its why all the corporations and political establishment love the non white world majority more than the white world minority(their own people) because the non whites are stupid enough to act like slaves for a cheap wage because they are promised free shit,a land of milk and honey(compared to their homeland) and easy white women and thus vote all the leftist globalist parties that supported their arrival. Free votes and cheap labour with the illusion of a good life due to free shit and endless support from the establishment.
>so much of an obvious infiltrator he doesn't even realize what we're calling him out for
top kek, just go back to r*ddit or whatever watering hole you sargon shills stem from
Bong understands.
Nationalism isn't really the complete opposite of globalism.
We're the Kings of centrist compromise though unfortunately.
m8 i havent even seen a sargon vid yet. kys
The one during the french revolution.
You know, the one where this whole "left-right" thing originated.
It defines the right as in a perpetual state of loss.
So literally what I said in the beggining in the second paragraph. You need globalism to justify your shit, because nobody would choose your shit either, and the vice versa. The nazis were fucked in the ass as much as in weimar republic. Basically my conclusion is that horseshoe theory is correct regarding the results of a false dillenma.
are you implying the far left believes in liberalism/freedom and not authoritarianism? you realize both extremes are totalitarian daddy-states right?