Horseshoe Theory | Very Important Docs⁹

Horseshoe Theory | Very Important Docs⁹

– Centrism’s biggest fan. Domestication of the wild horse is thought to have taken
place in Central Asia around 3500 B.C. As they became more commonplace, working animals were exposed to conditions that broke down or quickly
wore through their hooves. And so we developed a
solution, the horseshoe, a piece of metal we attached
to the feet of horses. (burps) Also, it’s somehow taken seriously as centrist political theory. (ambient electronic music) The horseshoe theory
is political framework that proposes the far
left and the far right, rather than occupy opposing
ends of the political spectrum, get further away at first, but then bend back closer to each other, much like the ends of a horseshoe. This theory is obviously
correct because America. How exactly do think we
settled this country? You think we road pigs
across the frontier? Nah. Pigs is food. That’s why we use horses, which taste very bad
when compared to pigs. Horseshoe theory is attributed to French writer Jean-Pierre Faye, whose name translates
from French to English as status quo guy and serves pretty much as the full justification for centrism. Centrism, you know, rationality. Being smart and
understanding that directly between two sides of an argument there is most certainly the truth. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. That’s the truth. Everything that’s outside the
center is extreme and evil. (gurgles) Boy, this country’s gotten so polarized. Everybody says agreeing with each other about how everything should be. (moans) I know that my personal truth
lies somewhere in the middle. If I had to guess, I’d say that I think you
probably understand pretty well that I think that stuff has
been jammed into our heads our entire lives and it’s not that valid. To talk about centrism, I want to bring up thought leaders. This is something that
I think in the abstract bothers a lot of people, but most of us lack
the language to explain what’s really just so
grating about the idea of a thought leader. More and more lately, you see people lamenting the fact that expertise is viewed with suspicion. How dare you question the experts? But in the same breath they’ll criticize The New York Times for
hiring a climate denier to write about climate change. Let’s make a quick distinction. Thought leadership is not expertise. It’s lifestyle marketing
made to look like expertise. Expertise is specialized knowledge. It is not charisma. It also can’t sell a product
line or an agenda on its own. Expertise has been conflated with the neo-liberal concept
of thought leadership. Thought leadership is TL;DR
level quote-unquote “expertise” paired with the willingness to
accept corporate sponsorship. We need to make facts
fun in order for people to pay attention to them is a gateway to but we have to have native content written by thought leaders. Experts talk about their (whip whacking) specialized knowledge. Thought leaders make facts fun and accept money to push
products and agendas. Thought leaders are the human version of an advertisement
tailored to make you feel as though you are making the right choice. Thought leadership works to
validate the thought leader as well as the people following them. I like to call this a validation gang because everybody likes to
consider themselves a leader as opposed to a member of a collective, but they all need that validation within this supposed meritocracy, because that’s how you
get and keep a job, right? Being an expert and a
thought leader is looked at as the same thing as an expert now? Yeah, you get it. When discourse, the creation
and implementation of ideas have been marketized, the marketplace of ideas
needs salespeople of ideas. Thought leaders are the
salespeople of ideas. Now markets are all pretty
much manipulated in some way, so let’s take that a step further. Since the marketplace of ideas is awash with plutocrat cash, it can be very difficult to stand out. And in my own opinion, that’s pretty much the point
of being a thought leader, the standing out, the wish to be a leading
voice within thought. In many ways, it’s a savior complex, but it’s also a business tactic. If you stand out, the rich will want you on their side, which of course there are benefits to. The rich have access to the media and the media is how you get attention, and I’ve said it before
but I’ll say it again, attention is currency in
the marketplace of ideas. Attention. Attention is what I’d like to assert is the functional currency
in the marketplace of ideas. Not practicality, not useful application, not wholesale validity, but how engaged people
are and for how long. Simply having a unique outlook
and a brand that goes with it has become increasingly profitable. The thought leader is more
of a marketing gimmick than a philosopher, and that’s why every thought leader is eventually funded in some
way by a corporate source, whether it be sponsored native content that reads like an article but is actually an ad for something, or they’re hired in as a consultant or get a job with a think tank that acts as an intermediate between a corporation and a politician. You know, a lot of profitable positions a single person can be
in that they benefit from and look really cool and smart and great, get to go on talk shows
and sell their books and feel really important, and I’m definitely not
parodying them at all with the title Very
Important Documentaries. No, that’s not the whole
idea or anything like that. This class of paid-for intellectual typically espouses a centrist viewpoint. Why? Well, people generally believe in freedom. Freedom is not any specific ideology. It is simply the rejection of control by another entity on oneself. So in a free society, how is it justified that
massive corporations somehow are allowed to
hoard wealth and resources in an effort to retain
control over the populace? To do that, we could
frame things like this. Too much freedom is bad, which is not wrong. If you were allowed to kill
people because you wanted to, that would be bad. And corporate totalitarianism is also bad, which I don’t even really think
I have to explain that one. That makes sense all on its own. So these two things are our two choices, but neither of them is
really good on its own, so maybe if we look
somewhere in the middle we’ll find the answer? Then we just wrap these both around because we think they’re both bad, and voila, a horseshoe. Centrism is an outlook
that supports the balance of a degree of social equality with a degree of social hierarchy. This is essentially an expression of ancient Greek philosophy
that originated with Aristotle called the golden mean. Here’s an example. Aristotle called courage a virtue, but if you had too much courage, you’d be a reckless jerk, and if you had too little, you would be a weeping, bumbling coward who lurks in the shadows
for fear of being found and sustains themselves
on the crumbs of society, for they have no backbone. But the big problem there
is that it is an argument that does not prove its own assertions, a logical fallacy. This one specifically is known
as the golden mean fallacy, or the argument to moderation. The truth doesn’t have to be found as a compromise between
two opposite positions. The opposite of Nazi is not Nazi, so the golden mean or the
argument to moderation is kinda Nazi, I guess? And I don’t really see
how you could kinda Nazi, like, I don’t get it. What, do you give the
Jews a little bit of gas? Like, don’t put the pedal
all the way to the floor? I mean, that’s bullshit in itself, but eventually the Nazi
version of Sammy Hagar is gonna show up and be
like, I can’t drive 55. This kind of argument
isn’t typically looked at as a bad thing. In fact, it’s pretty much how they try to get Americans to think. And don’t you dare tell me that everything doesn’t encourage you to find the middle. From your kindergarten teacher
to the South Park guys, it’s all about finding the right answer somewhere in the center. Everybody who’s outside
the center is an extremist. In order to figure out where they stand, centrists capitulate
with the Overton window. The Overton window is essentially
a descriptive spectrum of the range of ideas
the public will accept. However far to the left
or the right we’ve gotten and depending on how much
space in between them, you find your center. And where you find your center, you find your centrists. (whistling) You know, those brilliant thought leaders who don’t see in black and white, but instead in shades of gray. Being a centrist is the
equivalent of saying I don’t think anything needs to change. I’m good. I’ve got what I need. If we do stuff that goes off
to the left or to the right, things are gonna change for me, and I don’t like that. Thus the incentive to paint
anyone out of the center as an extremist makes itself obvious. If intelligent, well-spoken thinkers are able to express their opinions that ultimately endanger my position, you know, reduce my
ability to appear unique, remove my foot in the door
from the corporate hierarchy, well, they may cut off my cash
flow and I don’t want that. I want things to stay the same. I am an expert right now. I am respected right now. I am looked to. I am asked questions. My opinion matters. It drives the world, in fact. I am perpetually correct, and the conditions that exist
right now allow me to be that. There’s a certain
vulnerability to centrism, and I kind of think I understand it. See, centrists always feel
like right now is their time, and nobody ever wants
their time to be over. But it is. ♫ It’s done ♫ The party is done ♫ It’s over and done ♫ The panic is done ♫ The politics done ♫ Hypocrisy done ♫ The party is done – So you may noticed that I am not exactly centrism’s biggest fan in the world, and I can give you a pretty
simple explanation as to why. You see, centrists defend
centrism with crap like this. Now I’m gonna go at it and say this is probably the worst one I’ve seen that is still somewhat
mainstream acceptable, at least among centrists. In the center we see liberalism, which I would like to note is neither automatically socially progressive
or socially regressive. Secularism, which doesn’t
really mean anything regarding beliefs. It’s just kept out of the discourse. Classic feminism and equality. Now, all of these things are conflated with science and accuracy, I guess. The implicit stance taken
by including accuracy in a region of the horseshoe is that the other regions of the horseshoe don’t have accuracy. So the statement being made in the subtext is kind of obviously the correct
thing to be is a centrist, and if you aren’t a centrist, then accuracy, science, equality, and all these things aren’t
really a big concern of yours. So let’s just head to the far right. The first thing I want to point out is that Islamism has somehow made it to the right of fascism. Here’s the problem. Islam is a religion and I don’t believe in
it or agree with it, but if Islam acts anything like fascism, then it’s fascism. It’s not Islamism. Fascism is fascism. That’s how that works. And I’m not going to say that entirely buy that Islam or Christianity are religions of peace themselves, but the vast majority of
normal religious people tend to specifically know
the peaceful teachings of the religion they follow and that’s the reason they follow them. But let’s also just say this. If anybody ever does
use the word Islamism, it’s basically guaranteed to be ignorant. So as we move to the left, we have fascism and nationalism, which are really two
sides of the same coin. You can’t do fascism without a scapegoat, and that scapegoat is
immigrants 99.9% of the time. And if you want a democratic society but just for your race or nationality, you’re a fascist. Male chauvinism somehow between nationalism and conservatism. Once you get to conservatism, there’s no male chauvinism at all. That’s the border for that. Stops there. To the left of conservatism
is Catholicism, which is somehow further
right than corporatism, but absolutely nowhere near Islamism. Climate change denial is also tucked away between two labels, right and far right, so you don’t really notice it, but it’s there. Quickly peering over to the exact opposite on the other side, climate change denial is the opposite of anti-vaccine sentiment, apparently. That’s news, huh? Directly to the left
of center is hedonism, which to me seems like a
very strange thing to place at the very beginning of your
journey towards the left, hedonism being the pursuit of pleasure, or at its most complex, an ethical theory that
pleasure is the highest good and the thing that you
should strive to attain while alive on this planet because, well, that’s what matters. That’s not really a political ideology. As if every step you take left is more and more pleasure-seeking. It’s not about solving
the problems of inequality inherent to our economic
and social systems. It’s about getting off. And I’m not pointing this out to discredit people who seek
pleasure as a high ideal. If a society is truly free, obviously people should
be allowed to do that. But the point here is to hand wave away all leftist ideology as just some folks looking for their jollies. Next is altruism, which is, you know, the belief that selfless concern is important in the world, not a political ideology. Environmentalism coming next, which is a category of political concern and not an ideology all to itself, and then at the absolute
furthest from conservatism is socialism, the first ideology
actually mentioned here, at least on the left. Feminism, which is up in the
center as classic feminism, is, I mean, a left-wing ideology. But after we get past postmodernism, which is a philosophical
approach or methodology, again, not political ideology, we get to our second
actual left-wing ideology, third wave feminism, which classical feminism
and third wave feminism are apparently different
things to a centrist. Classical feminism is in the past and therefore unlikely to change anything, being it’s already made the changes that it set out to do. Women can vote, for instance. That was a big part in classical feminism. The reason there is still feminism today, though, is because there are still things that need to be done regarding
actual equality for women and also feminism has also
been historically centered on, well, white women, cis white women. There’s a reason why
people say white feminism. It’s the same reason why
people say white liberal. In a system like capitalism
that intentionally exacerbates the inequalities between
various groups of people, you can be a nice,
rational, friendly centrist, but because those scary extremists
on the left and the right are always shaking up your world, it might be just a little bit too hard to bring yourself to fight
for anyone else’s rights. You’ve got yours, right? Good stuff. – Being friendly and being a friend, I think, are two different things. I think there are many whites who act friendly toward Negros. A fox acts friendly toward the lamb. The wolf doesn’t act friendly, and therefore the wolf has more difficulty in getting the lamb chop. – So anyway, postmodernism,
anti-vaccine sentiment, and third wave feminism are
all basically the same thing, and then we have communism, which is more hedonistic, more altruistic, more environmentalistic, more anti-vaccinationistic, more postmodernismistic, more third wave feminismistic
than all that stuff. But since it’s the opposite of fascism and fascism is not the extreme, obviously Islamism needs
to have its counterpart, and that is anarchism, which just makes no sense whatsoever as something that is
somehow close to Islamism. Anarchism is real and political ideology, while Islamism, like I said, is not real, not political ideology, and it’s just kind of a roundabout way of demonizing a specific
religion, but nyeh. Somebody who believes
in a political horseshoe and believes that the
center is somehow the ideal, which are two things that
make up a Venn diagram that is simply one circle, somebody sat in that area politically believes that only the middle is accurate. Only right now is accurate. Only the status quo is accurate. Everything else has to be inaccurate. That means pre-civil
rights was inaccurate, but so is BLM. People seeking to change
things are inaccurate, and therefore people fighting for their rights are inaccurate. This is how centrists, whether they are kind or
nice to marginalized people, are at least accidentally
aligned with bigotry, because bigotry hasn’t been beaten and beating bigotry would require ideology that is out of the center, and so therefore it is inaccurate. And in the perceived meritocracy of the United States of America, being wrong is bad. But centrists, oh, they’re accurate. Compromise, that’s how we
stopped the Nazis, right? (nervous laughing) Not really. And you might be thinking to yourself, wait, so they want the status quo, but they capitulate around an
ever-changing Overton window. This is an inherent contradiction. Something’s up here. You’re right. The problem with doing everything you can to preserve the status
quo is that it will always slide into regression. Whether consciously or subconsciously attempting to preserve the status quo, one is fighting progress. In doing so, it lays groundwork for those that fight
progress a little bit harder. In order for those extra-smart centrists to be right about everything, the positions and
approaches of the opposites at the end of the spectrum
would have to have quite a bit of overlap to be
considered similar overall. So let’s talk about several categories of political concern and
the positions and approaches that the far left and right take. Leftist ideals typically attempt
to redistribute the wealth in order to create generalized welfare. Now Nazi Germany, a
far-right totalitarian regime on the absolute end of
any legitimate spectrum, had social programs as well, but these programs were built
on the theft of property through military annexation
as well as seizure of Jewish property in Germany and was meant exclusively
for German-born Anglo-Saxons. Jews were routinely denied
access to these programs because they were Jews, and the Nazis and Jews, you know. Leftist social programs are intended to be available for all people and are funded through
progressive taxation or collective ownership. National Socialism, or Nazism, was not socialism. It was simply just
ethnonationalist superiority distributing wealth. It’s important to note
that National Socialism is not socialism, it’s fascism. They intentionally create underclasses, that is to say, people who do not have the same rights and privileges as other people. The whole point of every
single leftist ideology, communism and its various
approaches to get there, such as socialism and anarchism, exist specifically in
resistance to the idea of class, and if communism was
actually fully achieved, it also wouldn’t have a state. On the issues of equality, far-right regimes typically
regard the situation that we’re already in as one
that has gotten out of hand. People of far-right ideology want to regress in social issues, whereas economically progressive positions are designed to work with
socially progressive ones. If all of the people are
not explicitly included, then it automatically
trends towards the right because it is a superiority situation as opposed to a legitimately
egalitarian one. Now on healthcare is when we start to get into an interesting area. The left-wing position on healthcare is that all people should have healthcare, whereas the centrist position is some should have healthcare
if they can pay for it, which is kinda eugenic-sy. And on the far right you
have specifically approved as biologically superior
people getting healthcare, which is, you know, very eugenics-sy. On the issue of environmentalism, let’s bring the Nazis up again. They actually were
somewhere environmentalist, but it’s not good. Nazi environmentalism
was rooted in the idea that the traditionalist, and keep in mind
traditionalist is the key word, farm life was viewed as good because the modern life
was, quote-unquote, “the results of Jews owning banks.” So it’s not like they were funneling money into solar panel development
or something like that. They just used the earth as another way to demonize Jewish people. Leftist environmentalism
is rooted in science, which is essentially the
opposite of traditionalism, and finally, ideologically
the far left and the far right could be literally no more
different on the issue of labor. Fascism subjugates labor
and Nazis eliminated labor unions and encouraged businesses who were quote-unquote
“down for the cause” to become monopolies,
cartels, and oligopolies, and they did this by removing regulations and even funding these companies as long as they were willing to, you know, do the Nazi. On the other side, left-wing ideologies such as communism, anarchism, socialism,
and everything in between all have different ways
and means of doing it, but the intent is to
ensure that the worker owns the means of production
and therefore their labor. I’m sure somebody out there is thinking, but the USSR. But China. But Venezuela. Well, it’s quite possible
to call yourself communist but really be totalitarian regime bent on exploiting labor
for your own profit. What you call yourself
doesn’t really matter if you’re not doing it. And to be totally frank, these regimes are not represented properly by basically anybody in the United States, so the stuff I just said
doesn’t even really matter. The point is entirely of perspective, and for a centrist, the perspective is constantly shifting. What is considered
acceptable by the public is an ever-changing thing. At one point in time, this meant finding the center
between blacks can vote and blacks can’t vote, and obviously that puts the centrist siding on a platform where
black people can kind of vote? That’s a false middle. That’s not a valid choice, I mean, unless you’re terrible. And see, here’s the thing. There might be some similarities between both the left and right, but that doesn’t actually mean anything. Here’s a crowd. Here’s another crowd. Both groups of people in one place. Same thing obviously, right? Wrong. An issue can be taken on by
both the left and the right, even systemic ideas, but the approach is always
invariably different. If you employed full-blown
communism for white people, for instance, it’s not communism because it’s the establishment of class. There is a class that gets the privilege of participating in that
so-called communism. Everybody else, whether
they be people of color or just people of a
nationality that is not the nationality of the country, are an underclass and
essentially that negates the idea that was put forward. If a socialist idea doesn’t
actually help everybody, it’s not actually socialist. It might mechanically be vaguely similar to socialism in some respects, however, the exclusion of some people, the creation of an underclass, automatically implies totalitarianism, because those people are
going to be exploited in service of the upper class. So in that respect, horseshoe theory gets kind of close? But close only matters in
horseshoes and hand grenades. Antifascism is not the
same thing as fascism, and as much as media outlets love publishing narratives
that act as though each one of these incidents is
one singular individual act, these events aren’t just
things that happen randomly, totally unrelated. If you go back, you can find repeated incidents of the right being
violent towards the left, and as much as liberals
may not like the tactics of antifascist action, it’s direct action in an
attempt to stop more of this. These incidents are connected. They are part of an
overarching series of events that have escalated due to
the right wing, not the left. The left is resisting this escalation. People really need to
stop saying alt-left. Within the framework of centrism, it binarizes leftism
as alternative ideology and therefore validates the alt-right. Trump realized this, and that’s why he co-opted the term. It’s really hard to argue
with your own point. – What about the alt-left? They came charging at the,
as you say, the alt-right. Do they have any semblance of guilt? You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent
and nobody wants to say that. – People who are in fact for the idea of everybody having healthcare or radical changes in the
criminal justice system or LGBT rights. Frankly, the left just really doesn’t like the whole inequality thing, and that includes between
genders or between classes, and the further left you go, the more that manifests. Calling anyone left of center the alt-left puts them on the same level
at white nationalists, which, you know, helps white nationalists. And I’m not gonna say that there aren’t shitty people on the left, nor am I going to say
that anyone on the left hasn’t proposed working
with the alt-right. It’s just that the majority
of us know that’s shitty, the vast majority. Yeah, there’s some shitty
leftists out there. Some. There are zero people
who identify as alt-right that aren’t shitty, and whether or not you believe in anarchy, placing it as the counterweight for an imaginary fascism-infused
Islam political affiliation demonstrates that the person
who made that horseshoe diagram doesn’t know what they’re talking about. And before you go, well, that’s not every horseshoe diagram, sure, yeah. But it’s a pretty popular one. A lot of people who claim
liberalism and centrism have posted that specific
diagram as a means to paint a political horseshoe as valid. In truth, if you want to
actually paint similarities between policies and what
their net effect ends up being, the center shares more in common with the right than the left, resulting in more of a fishhook. The fact is the center will
side with the far right if it ensures that the far left fails. Their capitulation will always end up with them siding with the
right rather than the left. For instance, both the
right and the center love their free-market capitalism. Both the right and center
think certain amounts of people should be excluded from healthcare. Both the right and the
center are uncomfortable with the social progression
of human rights. And both the right and
the center hate the left. Why do you think in the 1990s the Democrats went tough on crime? For fun? They were capitulating
to the center for votes, which, you know, allowed the right to pull the Overton window
further to the right. This is the result of the
ostensible left chasing the right. The second you call the center the left, the point in between
the left and the right, the center, moves to the right. And even if this weren’t true, the fact that the center
has such a willingness to hear both sides, centrists will always at very least accidentally provide a means
for the extreme right to rise. Centrism is at its worst a mask or a cover to feed right-wing ideology to people who consider
themselves rational. But even at best, it’s leaving the door open for people who want to consolidate power to put distance between themselves and those they consider
lower in a hierarchy to rule. In leaving the door open
for those types of people, you give them the ability
to do exactly that. Not everybody actually
wants to rule the world. Some people kind of want to just live. In fact, most people, the majority of people, like somewhere in the
neighborhood of 99% of people, and there’s this 1% of people
that don’t think that way, and yet for some reason
are able to maintain power. Every time you ask those people, regardless of how they identify themselves with which political party
or what values they espouse, for some reason they always hate the left. I wonder why that is? So is that polarization actually bad? If the extreme on one
side is full equality and the extreme on the other
is full totalitarianism, why would anyone pretend these are two sides of the same coin? Why is it so important to compromise with ideologies that result in
the marginalization of people by class, identity, or some other vector? Why is it that the only Nazis that matter are the ones in the history books? (“Pony” by Ginuwine) ♫ I’m in the center ♫ Ideas in a market ♫ Someone who looks at both sides ♫ Without even picking one ♫ You gotta be a liberal ♫ Or watch me as I’ll pivot ♫ No matter what you say, I’ll start ♫ Compromise ’cause I’m just so rational ♫ If you’re corny, let’s do it ♫ Ride it, my pony ♫ My horseshoe’s waiting ♫ Come and jump on it ♫ If you’re corny, let’s do it ♫ Ride it, my pony ♫ My horseshoe’s waiting ♫ Come and jump on it ♫ If you’re horny, let’s do it ♫ Ride it, my pony

100 thoughts on “Horseshoe Theory | Very Important Docs⁹

  1. Good video. But I wonder, what are the criticisms of socialism itself?
    I agree to some points in the left, to sone points in the right. But, what is the self criticism of socialism from a socialist's perspective?
    I'm just asking because I legitimately want to understand. Thanks for your time.

  2. The idea that attention, rather than wholesale validity of ideas or quality of presentation, determines success in the marketplace of ideas is confirmed by Peter Coffin's subscriber count.

  3. This reminds me of the work of Bourdieu and how we over determine the harmonies between difference. It is like we see two poles on a spectrum as equivalent in difference and then over determine that harmony to also mean equivalence in similarity. You endup with the idea that opposing things are as similar as they are different because of the similarity in difference. Maybe is enabled by some biological device(like the structure of language). Either way, is really counterproductive lol and we ought to try to understand this so we can inhibit or suppress it.

  4. Centrist: ALL IS WELL THAT ENDS WELL…. look at how good the people who used to be slaves are now, look at how colonialism made better lives for all those counties, look at how well "developed" the territories we took by force turned up, look at how women now have the vote, look at how industry brings lots of lots of useless crap and that created A-BUN-DANCE, look how that war and that other one brought people into prosperity, look how hierarchies turn the best people to do the best they are good at even if they step on everyone else…. look at how great I can make these arguments POST facto!!

    Of course I can make all those arguments if I don't have to mention all the things that DIDN'T turn out well and all the things currently not well, then I have to use the Pinker argument, Look at how well erecting is advancing, so many people getting out of EXTREME poverty and plugged into the electrical grid… look at all these charts telling you that.

    In the end and from the choices we got… is a centrist better than a leftist or a right winger?? As long as we need to apply labels and these are the only ones we got… and we DO NEED to apply labels!! What would we do without actual language!! Everything that exists has labels. We name a tree or table those words because , imagine if you had to give each particular tree a name, like human demand… it would be crazy!! hahahahahahahahaha  
    So labels it is.

  5. god these are great, I've been binging these at an unhealthy rate the last few days and I never get sick of them lol.

  6. Ive been playing ff7 on the switch. Hearing this tune (midgar I think) while listening to some good ol leftish theory is probably the height of my day lol

  7. Thats the second time I see you using Derridas picture for one of his contemporary thinkers. Is it deliberate? if so, i didnt get the joke =(

  8. I have a Facebook "friend" who is an obnoxious centrist and his posts are utterly infuriating because they're filled to the brim with both-siderist bullshit false equivalences. We're only friends because of a shared love of anime, and he's the moderator of a fan group for an anime voice actor I deeply admire, so unfriending is not an option. Sometimes I call him out on his more egregious bullshit…not because I think I can persuade HIM, but to at least give a competing point of view to other people who might be on the fence in the particular thread.

  9. I think Centrism can be mostly refuted with one question:
    “If someone says the afternoon sky is blue, and another person says it’s yellow, is the truth that the sky is green?”

  10. Centrism has allowed the political landscape to drift so far to the right that figures like Barack Obama, Tony Blair and Pedro Sánchez have become leaders of what are supposed to be left-wing political parties.

  11. The opposite of the Nazis position on Jews is the position that the Jews can do no wrong. A position which you with your view that Israel is commuting a genocide is not a part of, I.e you're kind of nazi-ish. So either you think that you're wrong or your style of comedy is just too advance for me.

  12. 'Altruism' being listed outside science and accuracy is uh.
    That's. A thing.
    Oh. Dear.

    And when did anti-vax become a left wing idea? That's a new one on me.

  13. The problem is, most centrists don't see the choice as being between "happy fluffy equality and progress" and "racist murderous totalitarianism". They see it as "murderous and oppressive totalitarians who call themselves communist" and "murderous and oppressive totalitarians that call themselves fascist." You just glossed over China and the Soviet Union and all that jazz, but that is the most important dichotomy because that is the most visible one. The tankies going around "joking" about putting centrists in guillotines doesn't help either, no more than fascists "joking" about the day of the rope. So long as leftists continue to deny and pretend like they don't see this, the longer we will fail to convince people that we really aren't like the Soviets or the Chinese or the Cambodians or the Cubans or Venezuelans. Meanwhile, the last government that actually called itself "fascist" died in 1945, while multiple countries call themselves communist today and none of them are countries anyone actually wants to live in. What people and governments call themselves does matter to people who don't spend years studying political theory.

  14. ok what's the running gag where you show the picture of Derrida for just every damn french thinker you quote? how did that start exactly?

  15. Just in case you or anyone else reading this doesn't know Islamism =/= Islam.
    Islam is a religion
    Islamism is a wide range of political ideologies that are or at least claim to be rooted in the teachings of Islam (whatever a particular group means it to be). In theory there can be far right and far left Islamists (and maybe even centrist ones too!) which makes it even sillier that they put Islamism to the right of Fascism.

    I also don't think the person that made the horseshoe chart understands this distinction either.

  16. Loved the video. Also couldn't help but notice the arms of the suit jacket at 3:50 being way too long and completely hiding the cuffs of the dress shirt.

  17. I feel super attacked, which is weird because I considered myself a centrist, and then as he explains centrism I'm like "this has nothing to do with what I believe." Does this mean I'm not a centrist? I just kind of adapt my beliefs according to problems that need solving. I'm willing to change.

    Edit: Ok, so I finished the video and I definitely had no Idea what centrism even was. I was under the assumption that being a centrist means that you want to find a reasonable way to get both sides to agree to further the goals of all parties involved. Basically, I thought centrism was liberalism but you're willing to hear what those on the right have to say. If what peter says is true, then I didn't realize what I was advocating for.

  18. Nice Islamofelia, Islamism is the politicisation of ancient Islamic modes of government, such as believing that being ruled over by a Caliph is a great political philosophy.

  19. Good to know that you agree with Francis Galton large groups of people are stupid. Of course he was wrong. Its also good you don't understand what a median actually is or why some things are normally distributed. But that is a dry sorta complaint, lets be more illustrative.

    Here lets do the impossible, lets "Sorta Nazi"

    This is the offical Nazi Party Platform

    It contains such radical and obviously evil statements as "All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
    " and "The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
    " as well as "We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
    " and "We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare."

    Oh shit mate, you already agree with 25% of the Nazi Party Platform.

    How about "Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
    " or this one here "In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
    " Or how about "We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

    Those dastardly national socialists. Opposing debt slavery and war profiteering, wanting social safety nets and outlawing child labor.

    All you need to do to make the Nazi Platform socially acceptable is delete half their points the digusting stuff like "Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.
    " and it is really easy to get a reasonable take on the party.

    Actually…. now that I think about it… it seems that the only difference between the National Socialists and the Socialists is that the nationalism….. Oh shit its a horseshoe…

  20. As someone who considers himself a left-leaning centrist, I can see many valid points in your video, despite not thinking you have accurately described my position. You might be describing the position of real people, but not me. I also think that the political spectrum is too multidimensional to put in a single continuum. You can find anarchists on both the left and the right, for example. On the right we have Anarcho-capitalists, who want the market to dictate everything and be entirely unregulated, which is terrifying, and on the left we have those anarchists who see any kind of hierarchical structure as being inherently inequitable and thus see government as part of the problem. In that sense, I suppose you could make a horseshoe argument, but that's not the whole picture. You can also find elements on the right and left who would impose very powerful and highly restrictive governments. This says to me that such elements are not a part of the left-right axis, but are instead on a separate axis which is independent of the left and right.

    Being a left-leaning centrist – that is, roughly speaking, someone who believes there should be some degree of capitalism within society, but with a minimum of guaranteed necessities such as food, shelter, and education to everyone regardless of who they are, and with restrictions on the influence the wealthy can exert over society – I find myself in a country which is increasingly leaning right-wing, and thus find myself more closely allied with the left. I don't move with the window (or, at least, I try not to), but my position relative to the window does move, and I will stand with the side which wants to pull that window closer to my political views. For now, I am an ally of the left, but should things ever swing in the opposite direction, I will be an ally of the right. This is not to say that I would ever want to ally myself with neo-nazis, fascists, or authoritarians, but I would ally myself with those whose political views are to the right of my own in the event that the politics in my country swung too far to the left for my tastes.

    Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between Islamism, Islam, and Muslims. Islam is the religion which follows the teachings of the prophet Muhammad. Muslims are the adherents to that religion. Islamism is the religio-political movement which promotes the spread of Islam through conquest, violence, and forced conversion. Islamism is extremely right-wing, and is led by the most fundamentalist elements of Islamic thought, embodying is racism, sexism, violence vs the LGBT community, and authoritarianism. Not all Muslims are Islamists, however, as they interpret and practice their religion differently.

    Despite all my criticisms, I do appreciate your video, and I think you made some excellent points in it. I enjoy hearing perspectives which disagree with mine, as it keeps me from finding myself in an echo-chamber where everyone thinks the same as me, and gives me an opportunity to re-examine my beliefs.

  21. This is actually an eye opening documentary for me. I never thought how the Overton window kept moving right, or how the right kept getting more nazi (oh, I'm sorry, ethnostate advocates) in America. The center exists to halt progress, and the right seeks to regress. A deadly combination indeed.

  22. Centrism is just a rejection of the ideological extremes in any given political system. If you lived in a communist country, you'd be a centrist communist, if you live in the USA you're a centrist of the USA-system. It is somewhat conservative only in the traditional sense. Being a centrist generally implies that you're for the reform and strengthening of existing institutions as opposed to blazing new trails, new services that can have meaningful impacts on people's lives can be developed.

  23. The frog is at the center of the hoof. It's the one area of the hoof the horse really gets hurt when something pushes on the frog making the horse limp.

  24. Centrists always side with the Right, which means they're not Centrists…
    Before The Nazis the centrist government hired mercenaries to kill the Communists. I think they're partly to blame for the rise of Fascism.

  25. I don't understand the way you frame centrist tendencies. Why did you frame the tendency toward a "center" as positioning oneself on a spectrum of reactions regarding single issues (like when you said the center of "black people can vote, and black people can't vote" is "black people can kinda vote"), rather than positioning it as choosing certain propositions and rejecting others from various ideologies (for instance: someone who might say "We should loosen banking regulations, and institute an income ceiling and UBI.")?

  26. The horseshoe theory demonstrates how two polar opposite sides are using the exact same idea but for different ends. Feminists and incels both believe that the opposite gender is to blame for pretty much everything thats wrong with their life. The far left and the far right both base their beliefs on the concept of white privilege. The far left thinks white people should feel guilty because they are inherently better off simply for being white. The far right thinks white people should be proud that they are inherently better off simply for being white. While they have opposite end goals both ideologies have the exact same core concept. The exact same racist concept. The concept of a centrist portrayed in this video is ridiculous. Centrists dont take a position directly in the center, they support policies from either side as long as they make sense, and disagree with ones that dont. Both the left and the right like to tell everyone else how to live their life, what they can do and what they are allowed to say. Centrists dont like this. Right now the left is the one doing it the most, so thats why it seems like the center is so against them. In the 80's and early 90's it was the conservatives the center was against.

  27. I tell my friends all the time being a friend and being friendly are two different things, I'm not always the friendliest but id take a bullet for my friends. I FUCKING LOVE MALCOLM X

  28. Question to Peter: are modern day philosophers thought leaders? For example Peterson, Zizek, youtube personalities like Olly from Philosophy Tube?

  29. I mostly like your videos, but I have to say that I find this one… Off-base. You make a good point: "centrist" probably isn't a meaningful political designation over the course of time, because societal norms shift and the mainstream "left" and "right" are artificial distinctions which are always in flux. However, when people use this label in the context of current political frameworks in the U.S. (or many other countries), it doesn't necessarily entail many of the positions you ascribe to it.

    Sure, the shitty horseshoe diagram you found suggests some pretty superficial, self-serving, and status-quo-reinforcing nonsense. Sure, some self-stated centrists might support it; "there are some shitty leftists", as you point out, and the same is true of centrists. However, at its base centrism can simply be " acceptance… of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy" (per Wikipedia); it can be a belief that hierarchical structures and a degree of tribalism will always be endemic to humanity, and this may not be completely avoidable in an imperfect world, but that the severity of inequality should be limited or reduced. It can just as easily be pragmatic socialism as cautious conservatism.

    Centrism, when people ascribe it to themselves, isn't always at some arbitrary dead-centre point on a spectrum between socialism and fascism. It can be at a centre-point between anarcho-communism (maximum freedom, maximum equality, rejection of all state apparati, extremely idelaistic) and nationalist authoritarianism (maximum repression and conformity, maximum hierarchy, totality of state apparati, brutally and horrifyingly pragmatic to the exclusion of any moral ideal outside of the state's will). The entire thing is rooted in the somewhat simplistic and increasingly-inapplicable |left-right" political dichotomy, but you're employing the strawman falalcy rather liberally when you attribute some of your talking points to centrism as core tenets, and positioning it where you choose to do so.

    Also: "Islamism" is a (admittedly, similarly imprecise and backwards) term for "Political Islam", "ISmalmic Fundamentalism" or… Essentially, "Theocracy, Muslim-Style". It's definitely a real thing, though. Countries practice it. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Brunei could all be said to employ some form of this philosophy, and Taliban and Islamic State groups wish to form (and sometimes have formed) states based around it. Left-wing leaders and ideologues HAVE implemented policies not unlike those of nationalists and fascists in service to "the common people" or "the global revolution". Even if they were "just pretending" to be leftist, and that wasn't "real" communism, saying that they don't count on these grounds sounds a lot like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me, and not dissimilar to "white nationalists" and "identitarians" who claim they are somehow different from white supremacists or fascists because those ideologies "Aren't true white nationalism" and are instead something different and more extreme being unfairly lumped in with them. You're much better than these people, let me be clear–you're not moral equivalents with them, because, you're right, horseshoe theory is a crock of false equivalency bullshit and their ideology is fundamentally rooted in way worse and more harmful ideas. However, in this video, you are making a very similar, and SIMILARLY FLAWED, argument to defend a very broad "left" camp that includes a wide range of belief structures with very different ideas about (among otehr things) the role of the state and the rights and freedoms of the individual.

  30. Okay, so… 33 minutes of strawmanning the horseshoe theory.

    Extremists are twats — doesn't matter if they're on the right or the left. And extremist anarcho-communists behave exactly like fascists. That is not only a centrist position. It's the position of every person with two eyes and a brain, and it is as plain as the nose on the face of a clown.

    (Zero respect for Antifa or Alt-right.)

  31. Centrists have always been the true obstacle/enemy for progressive change. I despise them more than right wing nut jobs.

  32. The idea that every political ideology on ond side as a clear counterpart on the other sounds kinda dumb to me

  33. i wouldn't fully write off 'islamism' as non-existent. it's usually defined as strifing for full implementation of sharia law, like ISIS for example, in contrast to just 'islam'. many muslim deem islamism unacceptable. to simply call it 'fascism' doesn't really help, although i accept the reasoning for this. nonetheless, one of my fave videos here.

  34. 5:58 LoL yea I always wondered if this was the case. I like to say stuff like "look everyone! I have on official big boy suit™ and I still have some special paper leftover!"

  35. I'm a centrist and I don't think this horseshoe was made by a centrist. It's "anti-SJW" propaganda. This thing places mainstream third-wave feminism, "post-modernism" (Not a thing unless you're talking about art. It's a thinly-veiled anti-Jewish fascist conspiracy talking point) and the "Regressive Left" (A useless catch-all term for everything from Stalinism to liberal democratic capitalist Europe's hate speech laws, which would defy placing it on a political spectrum) nearly at Communism. That's hyperbolic and ridiculous.

    I can't really help Peter if he feels like placing fascism and anarchism at opposite ends of a political spectrum is a microaggression, though. Are there people who are "sort-of Nazis?" Yes! There were lots of "sort of Nazis" in WWII, for example, the Italians and Hungarians. Modern conservatives often hold some of the same beliefs as the Nazis while anarchists will hold none of them.

    Organizing political ideology by both the amount of liberty and free agency allowed and by economic ideology is better though, otherwise its not very useful. Is an anarcho-capitalist right-wing or left-wing for example? Is Stalinism left-wing or right-wing?

  36. centrist extremists in the establishment democratic party gave us donald trump-
    they are a dangerous, powerful force that completely lacks self-awareness.

  37. Right: We should lock children of immigrants in cages.
    Left: We shouldn't lock children of immigrants in cages.
    Center: We can put some children of immigrants in cages.

  38. You don't use a hammer to do the work of a wrench, nor the wrench to labor as a screwdriver. And yet, for the nail there is the hammer, for the screw the screwdriver etc. The machinations of State are much the same; Monetary policy, tax policy, you name it; are the tools of state and as every situation demands a different tool it would be foolish to insist the hammer is never useful. And now we come back to the issue of centrism. There is, I would argue, a "true" centrism which is apart from the " well both sides are right/wrong"… lets call is a phase. Most people will realize at some point ( often in their late teens – mid 20s) that this idea is unsustainable. Parodies of centrists often feature them standing in the middle of a nazi rally with a sign that says "lets compromise" and while you REALLY shouldn't think centrists actually think that way, it's not an unfair critique of the "everyone is right/wrong" model; and it's one that when confronted with alot of centrists just collapse to what ever side of the political spectrum they leaned towards anyways. ( "IS there a rest stop between here and the point!?") No model of political structure will be with out a progressive/conservative dynamic. In that dynamic, the Progressives and Conservatives will both have flaws and will often both have a good point; but usually not at the same time. The real world is nuanced, it's big and weird and for an example, let's talk about abortion!

    A child when born is not capable of recognizing it self in a mirror. A newborn has no concept of object permanence and it does not start to form meaningful memories until a fair time after its actual birth. So is it REALLY human? You can argue it's not a full human ( I don't agree). But on the other side, the medical profession uses heartbeat or brain waves to determine if a human is still alive ( in the absence of both they are clinically dead.) That standard is also wildly impractical to apply to this topic. ( If your morals demand the ludicrous, you are morally shit. ) And so what we have is not a horseshoe, but two radical view points with logically valid ( valid here meaning internally consistent) but impractical arguments. There's a need to compromise because we have a believe that Humans (persons) are entitled to rights ( life,liberty, pursuit of happiness.) but we have a blurry line about when personhood starts. We have to draw the line SOMEWHERE between a clump of cells that the mother has the right to abort at any time for any reason; and a human being who has rights. There is a sensible place to draw the line, that being what's usually referred to as the viability stage, at the beginning of the third trimester. Only in America are so fucking off our rockers that this is a problem in our society. In Sweden for example, a woman is allowed to abort a pregnancy with no questions asked anytime up to the end of the 2nd trimester ( Note: I am not Swedish, but know and talk to Swedish people, so citation might be in order but I am too lazy to look for it.) After which you need permission from doctors ( a good reason) to abort a pregnancy. Hammer… Nail…

    Most issues in the real world are more like this than most people ( Americans esp.) realize. It's less about a right/left dynamic so much as it is a practical problem with a solution that no matter how you cut it is going to irritate both of the radicals. A centrist, the aforementioned " true" centrist is someone that understands and implements a political ideology that metaphorically sees the state and its operation as a machine which requires maintenance and repairs to function properly in metaphorical terms.

  39. Jesus butt-fucking christ your misrepresentation of centrism is insane! Centrism is not about always finding compromise, it's about not going full tilt one way or the other. There are both left-wing and right-wing talking points that I agree with. It's possible to be pro-choice, environmentalist, want unions and regulations on industry, and pro-lgbtq+ rights without wanting to overthrow capitalism. In the same way one can be opposed to religiously motivated violence and mass immigration without falling down the rabbit hole of eugenics.

    Using your example of nazi or not nazi, 99% of people are gonna pick the non-nazi option. Although I'd argue that choice presents a false dichotomy in the context you gave it, because I can ask a similar question like "are you communist or not communist? Anarchist or not anarchist?" The idea of "not anarchist" isn't equivalent to nazi, but you're presenting it in a binary way to imply it is! A better example of the opposite of nazism would've been anarchism, with the centrist point being neither of them. Being "kinda nazi" is a fucking stupid idea that stems from your fundamental misunderstanding of centrism.

  40. The real problem with the left/right paradigm is that it leaves out other spectrums such as the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum.

  41. I recognize that the horseshoe theory lacks a rational, empirical basis for it. But I do think it speaks to an underlying sense people have of the psychology exhibited by some fringed individuals. On both ends of the spectrum there are people inclined to believe only what they want to believe and nothing else. It isn't just that they're absolutist; they're egocentric as well. Their intuitive view of reality is their reality. Whether that reality contains elements of conservatism or liberalism is happenstance.

    The result is a mix of people, erroneously thought of as the converging horseshoe, who believe in government conspiracies, pseudoscience, alternative medicine and literal magic. What unites them isn't so much politics as it is delusion. Fantasy is what allows them to cope with the world. That's why they recoil so strongly when you try to press them with reason. To them, facts are an attack on their mental equilibrium. The truth is antithetical to their sense of wellbeing.

  42. As someone who considers himself broadly on the left, but also somewhat centrist, I was hoping this video would challenge my beliefs and give me something new to consider, but I ultimately came away pretty disappointed. You didn't make a good-faith representation of the views of the people being targeted, you mostly just made fun of a bad chart pulled off of Google images.

    First of all, very few people who identify either strongly or weakly as 'centrist' would say that they believe that the truth or the best possible outcome always lies literally right in the middle of two opposing ideologies. It's usually fueled by skepticism that left-wing or right-wing ideological solutions can be trusted to solve every social problem optimally (or even particularly well) all of the time. Most of us have heard at least a handful of proposed ideas from both the left and the right and have thought "ok, that probably wouldn't go very well. Perhaps we shouldn't give that group free reign to make radical societal changes at their leisure." Another aspect of it may be a general support for democratic principles which say that government has some level of obligation to reflect in policy the wants and needs of all the people they represent, most of whom (at least in my country, the USA) do not currently identify as leftists.

    Regarding 'horseshoe theory' itself, it's a concept that has only a limited amount of validity, since there are certainly more axes on which the far left and the far right diverge than converge, but you totally glossed over the few points that cause it to resonate with people. On a small scale, it's substantiated by some of the social dynamics characteristic of both left- and right-wing groups: being very insular, believing that they're members of the small group who has seen through the mainstream cultural lies and unlocked the truth, and constantly competing to peacock the greatest ideological purity and extremity in views. The biggest one, however, is the historical use of totalitarian state violence to impose both Fascist and Communist political goals. You may argue, as you began to, that those groups weren't "true" left-wing regimes, but when people think of Communism, they think of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, and the historical record is not rich with long-lived left-wing non-totalitarian political systems you can use as counter-points.

    You can try to argue that there's a workable democratic form of Communism, but that would make your jocularity about political polarization feel pretty weird. Polarization wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it were between the 99% and the 1%, but the type of polarization we have isn't splitting 'the proletariat' from 'the bourgeoisie', it's splitting the proletariat a few different ways within itself. As a result we get exacerbated ideological bubbles, a decline in social trust, and arguably 'revenge votes', e.g. Trump. You may think something is good because it's radicalizing liberals (i.e. making them leftist), but if the same phenomenon is radicalizing conservatives, you're putting an awful lot of marginalized people at greater risk, so… that's probably bad.

    Oh, and while horseshoe theory is flawed at best, 'fish-hook theory' is hopefully a joke, because taken seriously it's really stupid. The idea implies that the centre-left is closer to fascism than conservatives are. Hopefully no one needs to explain what's wrong with that.

  43. I'm gonna go e my take b4 and after watching video as of now I believe there is some merit and the examples that come to mind are on foriegn policy where libertarian and anti war left agree to a large degree but dont come all the way together like a horseshoe and the same on the use of force by the state on citizens ,though I assume the libertarian wouldn't mind if a private security co. Did the same ,they also usually hold similar beliefs on drug laws and personal rights like sexuality, though again libertarian while not caring if you're gay also dont mind private co. Discriminating agaisnt you not total agreement and for different reasons but similar overall outlook in those areas but on economic issues which I believe trump's ever other issue aside from climate change which is untangled in economics and that's why libertarians are dangerous cus they do get some things right and those things are very tangible and personal like owning guns or being gay or wanting to smoke weed or ending war but have the most dangerous economic platform…let's see if we agree and if you can sway me in anyway

  44. This explains why so many of my "centrist" friends often share and repeat right wing memes and opinions. Well done Peter.

  45. Look man horseshoe theory is not saying the ideas or resultant state are the same, just that the structural frameworks become similar on the extreme ends of ideologically-driven political beleafs. Namely; single party systems and state control of the media. If one believes strongly in an ideological set they will refuse to allow media to present alternative frameworks and want government control via that ideology.

    And no, horseshoe theory is not “centrist” and it’s certainly not like Sargon’s “liberalists” or whatever. I would argue a guy like Foucault would read horse theory as true (unless we undermine deeper structures of power themselves rather than the systems that perpetuate them)

  46. A centrist has to be content with the status quo?
    What if a person has some beliefs with the right, and some with the left, but still wants to see significant change?
    What if a person sides with the left in most issues, but absolutely disagrees with a handful?
    I think the definition of centrism is being presented as very narrow. Or maybe I just don't understand the term.

  47. There is no more sure of an axiom than that many Americans will always become exceedingly depressed, angry and will lash out if their reality is not constantly supplanted by tropes and stereotypes that exclusively validate the hagiography that they believe is what grants them the unearned advantages of being in a social dominance group wrought exclusively from Colonialist expropriation and dispossession of indigenous that took the form of repressive, expulsive, transformative and extirpative eliminationism ongoing. This is an illegal colony still and requires hagiography of colonialism to prop it up. Nothing is more pervasive in the entertainment than the social dominance group who just can’t get enough of the trope of white criminals granted impunity for their crimes over and over and over that and the trope of the white savior liberating and saving the “native” savages are the most prevalent tropes in all of American entertainment ever! That’s colonialism and it’s ur-fascism pseudoscientific race realism racism… But you’ll find really nothing else but the trope of white criminals granted impunity for their crimes incessantly on HBO and Showtime and AMC and all of the things people in the bourgeoisie group pay extra for that those outside of the bourgeoisie group can’t afford but you’ll find really nothing else but the trope of white criminals granted impunity for their crimes incessantly on HBO and Showtime and AMC and all of the things people in the bourgeoisie group pay extra for that those outside of the bourgeoisie group can’t afford. It’s called using ur-fascism to cultivate fascists by addicting them to cult the hero worship infused with weapons play ersatz phallic exercise and only with white criminals granted impunity trope (trump/sopranos/weeds/breaking bad/big love/ray donovan et al archetype) play over and over and over and all this HBO pay-per-pavlovian thrill grey agitprop/white criminal impunity trope started right about 1998 with Iran Contra Gary Webb’s reporting.

  48. So the basis for one's ecological beliefs matters more than the fact they hold those beliefs when others don't, and the real Communism has never been tried and yet is entirely possible?

    I like watching these kinds of channels for people's ideas on subjects and I understand they've got to be rather simplified to fit into the time segments, but you really get a sense of the blinkers of the creators in these half-hour posts. Still, it keeps my brain working to catch the logic traps so it's fun to watch over breakfast.

  49. Right now I see the system in the USA as the middle ground of "POC can't vote" and "POC can vote". Big parts of prison population (that is majority POC) can't vote even when they are released. Gerrymandering is making sure in some areas that POCs votes don't count as much as other votes. The photo ID laws to vote also make it more difficult for POC to vote. So, the POC can only kind of vote is the normal

  50. Watch jreg!!! Vote for centricide! (I am ok with it although i am a gasp centrist) Because everyone knows that we just don't have a set opinion on anything

  51. Peter this is your best doc by far! I love all your videos but sometimes they can be hard to follow (or I'm just dumb lol) this vid is so well communicated!

  52. I'm not smart enough to really comprehend what I'm hearing but I like it anyway.

    I feel like a fox news viewer.

  53. This video should be required viewing in every US high school today! Five stars and a huge thumbs-up! ***

  54. Multiple strawmen, identifying people centrists themselves call right wing. Calling centrism this method of just finding the middle when to most centrists it's not about that at all. It's not about finding the middle between "nazi or not Nazi". It's about saying "I not a Nazi" when that debate shows up but also recognizing that a second holomodor or killing white people for their past crimes is also a bad idea. Most centrists I know agree on gender equality, universal education and healthcare, taxing and reducing wealth inequality and many other leftist views but also discern between leftist arguments and radical leftist politics aimed at power Dynamics instead of actual progress. That horseshoe chart is really bad but you know this and use it to your arguments advantage. You also compare Charlottesville with a Pacific protest and avoid absolutely all critique of extreme leftists shrugging it off with "yeah there are like probably 1% crazy leftists". All this talk about fallacies and you say these kinds of things. Most centrists find themselves agreeing with left wing more than right. People on the media and politicians who claim to be centrists when they are conservatives are no more centrists than the totalitarians posing as communists you mention

  55. I have used Islamist to refer to theocratic or quasi-theocratic political ideologies that center around and advance the cause of (a certain subset of Islam), but I probably shouldn't use it, as "Christianism" Should be a thing by that logic (among others), and that… doesn't… work as a word. Just theocracy is fine.

  56. I think people who made this diagram were probably thinking of Wahabism when they wrote "Islaimism. Very likely, they wrote this in a xenophobic attempt to reduce all of (the more conservative) Islamic tradition to a small set of invariable principles that are abhorrent to what they identify as western liberalism. Though Islam is definitely too varied and culturally complex to be considered a consistent political ideology, Wahabism most certainly is a political ideology. Not only that, it's the political ideology that has driven the policy of many militarized Islamic nationalist groups as well as Saudi Arabia, the wealthiest nation in the gulf for many decades now. This claim might be a little too bold, but we have to at least acknowledge that there are political components to religion. That said, we don't need to involve religion in this discussion to conclude that horse shoe theory is outrageously bunk, so much so that I can't imagine anyone seriously proposing / defending it sincerely.

  57. according to reducto ad absurdum, jim crow should still be a thing according to centrists as its the in between for abolishing slavery and keeping it. That alone should be a very big red flag to anyone who fancies themselves remotely logical.

  58. One time my spouse claimed to be a centrist and I said " so what's the middle ground between the Alt right and me babe?" And he replied " that's not what centrism isssssss! Its me taking things from each side !"
    So I quickly responded "what right leaning pollitics do you have? Name one"
    He couldn't
    He likes the theory of centrism because of " everyone argueing about everything all the time" and " people getting offended by jokes"
    But he's not involved pollitically to know Jack

  59. "The fact that the center has such a willingness to hear both sides, centrists will always at very least accidentally provide a means for the extreme right to rise" I just love how always the right are painted as the bad guys… I guess that if you listen to people who have different ideas than you then you're supporting "literal nazis", and to avoid that you should always censor the right and listen only to the left… because, y'know, lefties can't be wrong and righties can't have good points.

  60. Did you even bother to google Islamism? Its not the same as Islam, Its a political ideology wherein the County is ran by sharia law.

    Maybe do a little research next time?

  61. There are plenty of male chauvinists on the Left, and most of them masquerade themselves as being profeminist until a woman says something they dislike or disagree with.

    It's why radical and "sex-negative" feminism exist. To counteract the misogyny and sexual entitlement of male leftists. For centrists to frame an attitude like chauvinism as a far-Right ideology is ludicrous.

  62. I really can't fully get on board with this centrists wanting to retain the status quo thing. Mostly cause it relies on even the most extreme left ideas being totally infallable, and necessary, which… You know, may still be arguable.
    They do actually have positions and principles besides maintenance and conserving. They're more a mix of right and left, or often on the left but not as extreme left like you are. At least that's sorta how it is in Canada, and I have american and abroad friends too.
    Other people brought up that this vid is very U.S centric and that may be correct.

    Also as I continue to venture through these vids… I'm still not convinced there is such thing as not a marketplace of ideas. With the way we've established it as attention at least with attention, not the "good" or "truth"… It seems to me that that's just human nature, not a result of capitalism, though it is a bit capitalistic in viewpoint. I guess in that way you can assert some capitalism is baked into humans.

    Another thing: One comment addressed it, but you classify as "reverse-thought leader"… I'm confused as to how else you'd normally ever go about any of this if the goal is to ditch using the "market place of ideas". Do you assume one day there will be Utopia with little discussion, and no charm necessary, or platform, only validity of ideas? I think it's possible there can be some of that, but changing humans not to examine the sender of info, or to just melt everyone as equally important and worth hearing as others seems to again, go against some parts of human nature

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *