Is horseshoe theory an overrated concept?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi all. Let's talk about horseshoe theory.

I will admit that there is some truth within horseshoe theory, but I think that some people overstate the validity and importance of horseshoe theory. In other words, the extreme right and the extreme left are somewhat similar but they aren't "exactly the same" as some people claim.

Let's imagine a world in which the extreme right has won and then imagine a world in which the extreme left has won. Are they really equally bad?

The Extreme Right Wins: The earth's natural environment is destroyed. Everyone dies.
The Extreme Left Wins: Nearly everything is considered hate speech ... but nature is pristine and clean ... so anyone who doesn't like political correctness can just walk away from it and live in the woods. Nature will always be politically incorrect and badass.

Those aren't exactly "equally bad" if you ask me.

If the extreme left wins, it will be almost like Life After People. Women will have abortions constantly. The population will drop. Towns will be abandoned one by one.

That's all good to me because I've had an obsession with nature and wild places ever since I was a kid. Some of my earliest memories are of camping trips that I went on with my dad, uncle, grandfather and dog. As long as nature and its magnificent glory is preserved, I'll be okay with whatever happens.


^^^
The extreme left wants to protect this. The extreme right sees it merely as a "dangerous place full of bugs and brown people".

Well ... my mind is made up.

Yes, not only is it overrated... It's a poor understanding of radical politics. It fails to grasp the core of what makes the right the right and the left left.

I also find that the right is more anti-intellectual than the left.


Right: "It's a bird."
Left: "It's not just any bird. It's a Kerguelen shag."

I could be wrong here, but I suspect you have a teenie weenie left-wing bias...

The Extreme Right Wins: They research and develop technologies which overcome environmental problems including overpopulation...


The Extreme Left Wins: The left wing hierarchy implements "Agenda 21":


No, I am not serious...
But then how could you be when you suggest the right wing would cause the extinction of humanity...

China's ruling regime is Extreme Left, and it's destroying the planet more than anyone else. And the 'Cultural Revolution' was one of the worst anti-intellectual events in human history.

This horseshoe theory is horses**t.

... except that the right-wing extremists typically deny the existence of climate change. They also usually deny that DDT was dangerous and deny that ozone depletion was ever a thing.

... and then there's the whole issue of nuclear weapon proliferation ... and the fact that many far-right factions hate each other enough to start a nuclear war.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that the far-right would literally kill everybody if it was given total control over the world. How would humanity survive in a rapidly warming world full of nukes and DDT with no ozone?



Agenda 21 is just a harmless plan for environmental protection.

How exactly is China left-wing? Do you become left-wing just because you label yourself that way ... or do you actually have to back up your rhetoric with actions?

If anyone can became left-wing just by labeling themselves left-wing ... then the term no longer has a meaning of its own.

How can a country which declares "getting rich is glorious" be left-wing? How can a racist dictatorship be left wing?

In the region of Xinjiang, it is illegal for men to grow beards because the Chinese government associates beards with Islam. The central Asian people who live in this region suffer from systemic discrimination, and the Chinese people refuse to "check their privilege".

China may claim to be progressive, but it doesn't live up to its claims. You might as well call North Korea democratic just because it claims to be democratic.

China is just like Oceania from Nineteen Eighty-Four in that it, in the name of socialism, it is destroying everything that the socialist movement originally stood for.

Wow...
You are taking your statement seriously?
I think everyone understands what M.A.D. stands for...
Even the alt-righters...
No point in having a bathtub full of cash when you are deceased...

The National Socialist German Workers' Party...errrm...

Both are anti freedom and thus authoritarian. However I think the left wing / right wing thing is silly I think people and ideologies are far too complex to define so simply.

How is nature going to be wonderful if mass immigration means every country becomes a concrete jungle? You realise the wonderful 'green' left are enjoying seeing hedgehogs wiped off the face off the earth because they cannot deal with the scale in change? That's hedgehogs, that have basically been around for millions of years. But who cares about that when rich people can get richer out of more people flooding in and building more houses and concrete going down. Yay for the 'green' left.

Most immigrants settle in cities, not in the wild.



What?

Hedgehogs aren't endangered.



Overpopulation is a myth. It's all part of the demographic transition. The rate of growth is steadily decreasing. If current trends continue, the world's population will eventually decrease.

Addionally, most people on the extreme left don't want rich people to get richer.

I'm thinking John is British because here in the UK both the left and right are against building in the countryside which means as the population increases homes become smaller with tiny gardens and are more expensive.

I'm not certain that the extreme left can solve the world's environmental problems. They have an aversion nuclear power, which could be used to reduce CO2 emissions and they have little interest in fusion power.

I'm not convinced that the left's plan to power the modern world on wind and solar is a complete solution. Neither one of those outputs consistent power 24 hours per day. The power could be stored in massive batteries but the manufacture of more batteries would also cause environmental damage.

I'm confused by the left's aversion to genetically engineered food, which could help the environment by growing the required amount food on less land, reducing the need deforestation to get more farmland.

Also genetically engineered crops could be used to reduce the severity of famine and malnutrition and third world countries. The left seems to have little concern for the starving millions, and neither does the right.

If the right is anti-intellectual and the left is anti-technology.