American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Tarsonis]

Oh I get it, you don't know what horse-shoe theory is.

Oh I do, but you don't care about that do you? Due to some 'both sides' bullshit.

What's hilarious is that right now you're proving the theory correct and you don't even realize it.

[Tarsonis]

No, you're self-riotous and are looking for trouble.

We're all self-riotous here. I even brought a petrol bomb.

Amateur. *Sets flamenweuffer to flambe*

[The Temple of the Computer]

Oh I do, but you don't care about that do you? Due to some 'both sides' bullshit.

What's hilarious is that right now you're proving the theory correct and you don't even realize it.

How?

[North Washington Republic]

Did I piss in your oatmeal or something?

No, you're self-riotous and are looking for trouble.

Dude, you started with the ad hominems. I suggest you go do your favorite stress relieving activity.

[New haven america]

What's hilarious is that right now you're proving the theory correct and you don't even realize it.

How?

Not seeing "how" is another symptom of it.

Congratulations.

[Tarsonis]

'From the way that I see it, there is no difference between gassing the jews and not gassing the jews' average horse-shoe centrist.

I thought it was "far left and far right become almost indistinguishable, if they authoritarian enough". At least, that fits my own distrust of authoritarianism: it doesn't make much difference what you're trying to achieve by oppressing everyone and killing some of them, the means makes its own end (and that is usually deep resentment of the rulers, and their heads on pikes if they let their guard down).

That's essentially more or less it. It's less a comparison of ideologies, and more about antics. The more extreme the ideology to the left and right the more prone to totalitarianism and authoritarianism they become to the point they largely indistinguishable. Hence while Fascist Germnay an Stalinist Russia were identically opposed, there's little difference between the two in terms of violence and authoritarianism.


There's plenty of valid criticisms, but said poster isn't making any.

[Salus Maior]

Did I piss in your oatmeal or something?

No, you're self-riotous and are looking for trouble.

....Do you mean self-righteous?

[The Temple of the Computer]

How?

Not seeing "how" is another symptom of it.

Congratulations.

So asking is now illegal?

[Nilokeras]

Horse shoe theory has its merits. I don't think anyone cares about your respect.

It really doesn't. It's a totally ahistorical and frictionless idea - much like 'totalitarianism' it's a project of a particular school of political thought to try and lump together entirely different governmental, ideological and historical systems together as a way to create a unipolar system by which all opposition to the 'centre' can be cast in with the worst despots of history.

[The Reformed American Republic]

No, you're self-riotous and are looking for trouble.

....Do you mean self-righteous?

Obviously. Typo plus spellcheck.

[Odreria]

Then why call yourself a Titoist in your sig? Titoism is a specific form of Marxism.

If only there was a word for a sort of socialism that rejected Marxism and internationalism, and instead embraced nationalism and populist symbolic struggles over things like flags

oh well

nazism is when flags

[Tarsonis]

What's hilarious is that right now you're proving the theory correct and you don't even realize it.

How?

Aggressively attacking posters, who challenge your positions? smear tactics instead of arguments? All you need is some orange foundation and voila

[North Washington Republic]

Horse shoe theory has its merits. I don't think anyone cares about your respect.

It really doesn't. It's a totally ahistorical and frictionless idea - much like 'totalitarianism' it's a project of a particular school of political thought to try and lump together entirely different governmental, ideological and historical systems together as a way to create a unipolar system by which all opposition to the 'centre' can be cast in with the worst despots of history.

Isn’t that true for all ideologies?

[New haven america]

Not seeing "how" is another symptom of it.

Congratulations.

So asking is now illegal?

Don't use Trump's debate tactics, you're supposed to be against him.

[Tarsonis]

Horse shoe theory has its merits. I don't think anyone cares about your respect.

It really doesn't. It's a totally ahistorical and frictionless idea - much like 'totalitarianism' it's a project of a particular school of political thought to try and lump together entirely different governmental, ideological and historical systems together as a way to create a unipolar system by which all opposition to the 'centre' can be cast in with the worst despots of history.

As I said above it's not perfect and there many valid criticisms, but I still assert it has some merit. I don't think that's necessarily the ostensible intent of the theory but it can definitely be used that way.

[Salus Maior]

....Do you mean self-righteous?

Obviously. Typo plus spellcheck.

Happens to the best of us.

[Tarsonis]

Amateur. *Sets flamenweuffer to flambe*

Of course I'm an amateur. Professional rioters are probably working for the enemy, and need their flamenweuffer ... uh, never mind.

Flamenweuffer is an objectively funny word and that is a hill I'm prepared to die on.

[Odreria]

I aspire to be self riotous

[Greater Miami Shores]

Republican President Donald J Trump of the USA, and the Republicans are not guilty of any of the biased, partisan, anti Republican, anti Trump leftist media and leftist Democrat Party charges, Talking Points, as I have explained in details many times, even with a video link from Politico, Proving me right and Proving us right, for which I was called a liar, and the leftist poster never apologized as I asked him to, and promised to thank him for it.

You don't have to defend yourself over the actions of someone else dude.

Dude, I honestly don't understand your statement?

[Nilokeras]

It really doesn't. It's a totally ahistorical and frictionless idea - much like 'totalitarianism' it's a project of a particular school of political thought to try and lump together entirely different governmental, ideological and historical systems together as a way to create a unipolar system by which all opposition to the 'centre' can be cast in with the worst despots of history.

Isn’t that true for all ideologies?

Is what true of ideologies? That they have projects? If you're already conceding that horseshoe theory is a project explicitly designed to lump opposition to the status quo together and delegitimize it this'll be the shortest argument in NSG history.

As I said above it's not perfect and there many valid criticisms, but I still assert it has some merit. I don't think that's necessarily the ostensible intent of the theory but it can definitely be used that way.

It is the inherent intent of horseshoe theory. 'Totalitarianism' is the glue that binds the end of the horseshoe together - it's the idea, predicated on the Soviet and Nazi regimes, that all leftist and rightist regimes are the same because they share the common threads of a governing ideology and state control over things like communications and the economy. If you spend more than 5 minutes looking at the history and structure of either though you'll see that they're very different, and the whole thing falls apart.

[Tarsonis]

You don't have to defend yourself over the actions of someone else dude.

Dude, I honestly don't understand your statement?

Now you know how it feels to be us, for once.

Anyway, it appeared you were trying to distance yourself from said poster. Rereading your post I realize now you were trying to defend said poster and that's a shame, considering that poster was a DOS who was trolling and making a mockery of Trump supporters.

[Tarsonis]

Isn’t that true for all ideologies?

Is what true of ideologies? That they have projects? If you're already conceding that horseshoe theory is a project explicitly designed to lump opposition to the status quo together and delegitimize it this'll be the shortest argument in NSG history.

As I said above it's not perfect and there many valid criticisms, but I still assert it has some merit. I don't think that's necessarily the ostensible intent of the theory but it can definitely be used that way.

It is the inherent intent of horseshoe theory. 'Totalitarianism' is the glue that binds the end of the horseshoe together - it's the idea, predicated on the Soviet and Nazi regimes, that all leftist and rightist regimes are the same because they share the common threads of a governing ideology and state control over things like communications and the economy. If you spend more than 5 minutes looking at the history and structure of either though you'll see that they're very different, and the whole thing falls apart.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree.

[Grave_n_idle]

Awesome. I've been working in the sciences for more than three decades, go ahead and present your evidence and explains your argument.

I have already seen your so called evidence and you have already seen my evidence.

An interesting claim. I haven't posted any evidence in this thread, and I just returned from something like 5 years of not posting, so i have to wonder what evidence you think you've seen.

Perhaps you haven't researched this as well as you think you have.

[American Pere Housh]

You just gotta love American politics.

[Punished UMN]

Is what true of ideologies? That they have projects? If you're already conceding that horseshoe theory is a project explicitly designed to lump opposition to the status quo together and delegitimize it this'll be the shortest argument in NSG history.



It is the inherent intent of horseshoe theory. 'Totalitarianism' is the glue that binds the end of the horseshoe together - it's the idea, predicated on the Soviet and Nazi regimes, that all leftist and rightist regimes are the same because they share the common threads of a governing ideology and state control over things like communications and the economy. If you spend more than 5 minutes looking at the history and structure of either though you'll see that they're very different, and the whole thing falls apart.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree.

The problem with "totalitarianism" is that it doesn't really describe any cohesive concept or view regarding governance. It's too abstract to be a useful system of categorization and depending on your definition, you could make the argument that no regime has ever actually embodied such an ethos. Even the Nazis weren't the busybodies that the label is seems to imply.