Why do people deny it?

Because it makes less sense than any other attempt to portray ideologies in a graphic and the main adherents to this belief are fencesitting centrist smartasses

Only in extremes. The same could be said of Liberalism.

The ideal system of government strives for a balance between freedom and order.

>centrism

How does it fit in there, that the original European right has critizised the Declaration of Human rights (1789), which is is a perfect example for positive law because of it being a positive law?

yes, the ends join up, though why would it be a perfect circle, it is more like this really

just because you don't want to kill business owners/brown people doesnt mean you have no coherent belief

The difference between left and right in your picture is completely arbitrary. One could easily argue that the unnatural, corrupting force is capitalism/hiearchy, thus making communism/anarchism right wing. Also, a national socialist would argue that our system is fundamentally broken at the basic assumption of all races beeing equal, thus making him left wing.

>adhering to an idea dogmatically is good even if you have to ignore evidence that shows it's wrong

This is what people actually think is good.

so, there's chads, virgins, and then there's different variations of normie? why would the population be labeled like this.

Not history nor humanities. Fuck off.

>too intelligent to have a political opinion

Because the extremes feed off hating each other and being compared this way horrifies them.

It's both history and humanities.

To represent the prevailing attitudes amongst the populace and the inevitable state/government/anarchy that results.

note: they are just terms familiar on Veeky Forums for brevity's sake, for example it is possible for a girl to be "Chad" even though that is a boy's name

>Being very wealthy is the same as being very poor, both are just extremes mannnn

I like this, even though I disagree with parts of it. I still do think horseshoe theory is true in regards to when movements remove democracy such a empowering a single authoritarian leader.

Stallinism was basically communism and fascism combined, and so was Strasserism.

Horseshoe theory is true, but wrongly applied to the politics of the left and right and not their belief systems.

It should be a rational fantasy scale with centrists preferring policy based on institutions providing facts while the partisan fringe despises these institutions in favor of their own version of the truth.

reminds me of ponygirls

I think that there's a difference between your political idea and the value of your possessions.

is she the one who acts like a child?

This type of shit only makes sense if you apply it one issue/policy at a time. Overall its pretty useless because of the dynamics of ideologies...not to mention theories for fixing individual issues are more dynamic than that in the first place. Its like trying to explain drawing 3 dimensional drawings on 2 dimensional surfaces to blind people (basically impossible).

It's a dumb oversimplication of complex issues and a complete non argument thrown out by lazy centrists. I have no problem with centrists who are internally consistent and honest, i.e. Keynesians, civ nats who believe a healthy mix of liberalism and conservatism is ideal, the average dude who realizes electoral politics is all corrupt and insists on being apolitical, etc. All acceptable and respectable opinions imo. But the equating of totally different ideologies like Nazism and Stalinism as basically identical because they both resulted in terrible shit and then acting like that's an educated and nuanced opinion is obnoxious and self righteous. Stalinism and Nazism both did terrible shit but employed very different methods and ideological justifications to accomplish them, so saying "hurr they're the same" undermines the analysis of any history or politics, as does reducing it to some dumb garbage like a horseshoe or a political compass.

For example, tho Nazism and Stalinism both held people in inhumane mass prisons, the difference of being a supposed ideological agitator or class enemy has different origins than belonging to a genetically inferior subhuman group, and that difference is seen in how under Stalin people in gulags were made to write letters explaining what they've learned to the government, something that is no better than the methods of humiliation in Hitler's camps but betrays a very different dogma.

t. Commie scum

Yup, one of them has a measurable effect on your life and the other decides how you explain your relation to your possessions

If there wasn't a difference it wouldn't be an analogy you brainlet. The point is the horseshoe meme is retarded because it tries to treat the intensity with which you subscribe to a political view as though it were the only attribute worth considering. It's possible to be fanatical about good ideas and not have the same results as someone who's fanatical about bad ideas. Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus was pretty fanatical, but he's generally looked upon favorably in retrospect by US historians. Using nuclear weapons to annihilate civilian filled Japanese cities was pretty fanatical, but Truman's similarly held in pretty high regard. Centrists, of the horseshoe meme variety at least, can't differentiate between the violence of a benevolent surgeon and the violence of a malevolent murderer.

But the Argument hat Horseshoe theory makes the argument if people get radicalized, they will look for scapegoats (jews/capitalists/nonbelievers) and opress or even kill them. Sure, the dogma might be different, but they act according to the same human flaw.

Why are you assuming the opponents of a "radicalized" ideology are just "scapegoats" and not actual opponents? Are you unable to conceive of the possibility o a hostile group who wrongs you to such a degree that a "radicalized" response would be called for?

I understand where you're coming from but isn't that inaccurate aswell? Stalinism doesn't have a lot to do with leftism because its authoritarian however it does pursue communism, which is usually considered leftist. Meanwhile national-socialism is also authoritarian while being more corporatist and nationalist (considered leftist, however some would say corporatism is leftist/anticapitalist) with some socialist attributes (also leftist). The left-right dichotomy is broken so keep in mind I use those terms with a great deal of apprehension. You kind of alluded to it...the left/right dichotomy is more ideological and accusatory, not an actual thing practically speaking...in policy, law, etc.

No, the argument that horseshoe theory makes is that political ideologies approach similarity at their "extreme" end because of superficial similarities based on policy. The ideologies aren't necessarily reflected in the governments that supposedly represent them and there's a difference between having an "extreme" ideology and having an "extreme" way to enforce an ideology.

That's how you radical guys view yourself. You believe that your scapegoat is the real enemy, so you think you are different from all other radicals.
Forom center perspective, radicals are only different in what scapegoat they have chosen

This. Centrism assumes a non ideological rational middle ground that is it's own dogma. The "extremes" on the horseshoe are only similar in how similarly they genuinely threaten the status quo which is why it makes sense from a centrist position where essentially they believe anything too different from what exists now would be terrible. Centrists were the people advocating constitutional monarchies and mercantilism as the logical conclusion of history and the most viable system. It's ahistorical posturing for the sake of comfort.

Well I understand the left/right dichotomy within the horizon of communist dogma as the dichotomy between liberation from labor exploitation and defense of labor exploitation, but I agree there is no inter ideological explanation for what either really means that we can all agree on. The problem with centrists is that they (often, not always as with smart keynesians, regular purportedly apolitical people, etc as I said in my other post) deny that their own views are shaped by dogmas and believe they're just very rational subjects who've found the secret of the rest of our petty squabbles. Their horseshoe understanding of politics is the perfect example of just how dogmatic and ideological they are that they just so happen to be opposed to ideas based on a scale of how different they are from the status quo.

So there is never, ever a case where taking extreme action against an enemy is anything other than scapegoating?

>The ideologies aren't necessarily reflected in the governments that supposedly represent them
Maybe not, but the historical experience shows that whenever a radical ideology comes to power, opressive regimes will rise.
Me as a centrist guy, I don't want to risk my future and that of my country, just for the chance that the revolutionary regime might represent the ideology correct this time

No, it's fine to defend against extremists, without them our society would be much much better :^)

diving the world in friend and foe is tyypical for a radical. He doesn't aunderstand that different people are in different circumstances, and thus act according to different pressures.
The radical doesn't want to find a compromise, he wants revenge for perceived opression

...

yes, that's a radical. Just like you

Thats not what I'm saying though, a "radical ideology" doesn't necessitate a revolutionary type of policy change.

reminder that "horseshoe theory" is the product of the politically illiterate and burgers observing the following

reminder that political compass is the product of the politically illiterate and burgers wanting a facebook quiz to tell them where their politics lay

Because it applies to them, and realizing they're just as retarded as their enemies triggers them. See

it might not necessitate it, but it happened in the past every time, so people dont want take chances

>1 fat bitch died

...

Today's radical is tomorrow's centrist.

They cant think outside the overton window.

Extremists don't want to be told they're not the hero of the story, or that they natural attraction toward purity by gunpoint is shared by their worst enemies.

>it tries to treat the intensity with which you subscribe to a political view as though it were the only attribute worth considering.
That's not it at all. You could be intensively conservative or intensively progressivist and that wouldn't make you far-right or far-left.

Also, your exemples weren't fanaticism, that isn't what fanaticism is. They were extreme, but ultimately pragmatic, rational decisions that only made sense in context. Lincoln, for instance, didn't set out to abolish slavery, he set out to compromise the liberty party's agenda with the Southern agenda by allowing slavery where it already existed but prohibiting it's expansion - outlawing slavery everywhere wasn't on the agenda until neutering the South was necessary.