I’ve tried to educate a few people on what’s wrong with the horseshoe theory. The hardest people to convince are the smarter people. Smarter people often like balanced things. The horseshoe theory is very attractive and appealing, nice and balanced, easy to explain and understand.
It also just happens to be wrong.
You can argue if you like. But I know I won’t be able to convince you. Horseshoe theory is nice and balanced and logical on the surface. It all makes sense and avoids dealing with what *seems* to be only nuances of differences which turn out to be actually structural differences between them.
But, here you go.
Your desire to be in a strongly balanced center position will probably keep you from being able to move away from it because it then forces you to choose, and choosing is uncomfortable because it will put you in a bracket with other people you might not want to consider as “your people”.
It’s sort of detailed, ‘heavy politics – real politics. I’m not into politics so it gave me a bit of a headache but it makes sense.
Politics isn’t binary but when it comes to what extreme you may “tend towards”, there’s only one of them ultimately. I don’t like that fact myself but I can’t deny it and I REALLY wanted to be center.
If you were king, sure. But this also includes imagining yourself as the lowliest member of that society. If you also find that acceptable, then you know for sure.
One of the things I hate about smart people believing the nicely balanced but incorrect horseshoe theory, is watching friendships break up over it.
You can’t say to someone who believes horseshoe theory anything except “both sides are equally bad”. That’s it. If you express any other opinion, there’s a battle and friendships break up.
They’re smart but the need to keep everything in a logical balanced form is _so strong_ that any deviation from that ends up with broken friendships.
Emotions take over. Debates happen. Friendships broken up.
It’s not a centrist position but it “feels like one” because it’s based on incorrect information that’s balanced. People that have their Yin/Yang political balance all peacefully figured out don’t want to hear anything that takes them off of that and they’ll defend it.
I just watched a discussion 5 minutes ago between two friends that ended up in a broken friendship. It was sad to watch the back and forth leading to destruction but there wasn’t anything I could do to stop it.
I’ve seen many others, some on my own comments sections but this one just happened.
We got a trump in. The mommy / daddy / mommy / daddy / mommy pattern continues (democrat / republican / democrat / republican / democrat).
This is just an outgrowth of that. All they have in common is daddy-fixation, even if they don’t like the daddy in power.
In a few years, it’ll be mommy’s turn again.
I’m jealous. It’s the kind of thing that, when it FINALLY makes it to the USA, people will wonder “wait, why didn’t we do this before again?”
I don’t think there’s been a pure theoretical system of any kind that’s been in use. There always seem to be some compromise along the way that includes aspects of a number political systems rolled together.
Embedded in “tech for all” is a form of socialism, or rather “democratization of information” – i don’t like either of those terms but I think you know what i mean.
One of the issues with the internet-as-model for society is two things primarily that I see:
a) the internet’s not designed for privacy. At all. All these bandaids will eventually fail. Nobody should be banking online with ANY system, no matter how complicated. But we do because we’re a stupid species. I do it too.
b) the internet’s never figured out money. It’s not part of it, there’s no spot for it. It was designed very idealistically, with cost factors just something to be figured out along the way. And because it’s so valuable, it has been.
Perhaps a society put together well enough that the value of the society itself sustains it is the key. I dunno.
People don’t mind being controlled if it’s done right with their permission.
Example: Why do we listen to a good story?
The storyteller leads you along and you like it. You agree to it. You’re being controlled by it because you give your permission to be controlled.
I’m controlling you now. Even if you argue back, at this moment, I’m in charge.