I posit that the effect is real (see sibling comment about "horseshoe theory"), but that framing it as "wrap around" incorrectly centers the discussion on a single left-right axis. There are several other axes that govern how people interact with issues (personal life issues, societal issues, and politics as a subset). In my experiences, among the most common are three dispositional axes:

- Is their focus on making things better, or on keeping things from getting worse?

- What is their regard for institutions and/or expertise?

- Are they attracted to, or turned off by, a framing that relies on scalar hyperbole: "the worst its ever been", etc.?

A person can shift around "on the issues", viewed purely as left-right, while still remaining true to themself on these dispositional axes.

There is a framework I recognize as similar put forward by Arnold Kling that I think of often, the Three Languages of Politics, that suggests part of what makes political discourse so often fruitless is that the primary value axes differ for three major political interest groups:

Conservatives: Civilization vs. Barbarism Libertarians: Freedom vs. Coercion Progressives: Oppressors vs. the Oppressed

His thesis was that polarization has been increasing because there is often no natural policy alignment across these axes, even while many would probably agree on some fundamental Western tenets of rights and justice.

Does the framework cover capitalism, socialism, or the economic left? The Overton window is bigger than the three interest groups listed. The groups are all centre[-left] or right wing.

There is policy alignment historically. We can look to how the Nordic countries or Mass and then America dealt with health care in modern times.

The right was cool with Mass “universal healthcare”. Liberals were not. Then when Obama did what Romney did in Mass, it suddenly became a liberal viewpoint and the Overton window moved to the right.

This has issues with “no natural policy alignment” imo.

I didn't read the book; it was written prior to 2013 when I heard him on a podcast conversation. Parts of it stuck with me, and I remember there being a more recent followup:

- https://www.econtalk.org/kling-on-the-three-languages-of-pol...

- https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-the-three-languages...

Ah. I’m viewing all this in 2023. I tried skimming the talks. It doesn’t cover leftism. It covers liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. I see the site, Cato Institute, and the author are all libertarians.

The topic is missing 1/3 to 1/2 of the Overton window and regularly conflates a made up “left” that doesn’t exist. Of course the left exists. Liberals are not the left.

I searched a few basic topics and many results [and comments] lacked awareness of socioeconomic knowledge. Sometimes defiantly so.

Meanwhile when I go and look at the [far] left, they are likely to be honest with their good faith intentions of agitation and propaganda.

Thanks for the links.

Edit: the problem isnt leaving out the left. The problem is leaving out the importance of the left and how “progressives” can’t be used alongside conservative and libertarian. It would be similar to giving a thesis on basketball with a “3 position” stance. Small forward (progressive), guard, guard (the other two). Crude example but this sort of sports book would be utterly trashed for being anti-intellectual and pedantic.

Studying political science, I have a hard time on this. Do we have any [modern] examples of far left moving over?

I agree with personal issues. What is the difference between societal and politic issues?

This topic is liberals founding a media company and one of them already being a controversial liberal who was scratched revealed and went mask off as a fascist. A cliche.

Good job at finding a framework with your Qs! An issue is they are vague. I tried answering your questions and they don’t answer what my politics or principles are.

I wonder if the perfect combo is to include policy questions along w/ some steel-manning. The current questions don’t take the Overton window in consideration. Anecdotal, I have yet to see someone’s [future] politics without hearing their policy ideas.

> A person can shift around "on the issues", viewed purely as left-right, while still remaining true to themself on these dispositional axes.

I’m still curious to what end any of this? What is it showing for people in general? Personally I would gain nothing about knowing someone’s principles or politics from those questions.

Finally the one thing that is entirely left out is capitalism. What left right are we discussing? Where does believing in capitalism lie on this? Without being specific and steel manning, people of every political disposition will sometimes answer the questions the same.

GenX alternative subculture in North America in the 90s & early 2000s was very apolitical. It was oppositional to the mainstream but didn't really do so around 'issues' so much as aesthetics and a general hatred for the mainstream. As someone who was quite openly (far) left wing at the time, I felt very much in the minority.

Yes there were anarchist political punks, etc but it wasn't really the focus.

I don't recall finding VICE in the late 90s, early 2000s to be political at all. It was just snarky and sometimes funny. "Dos and Don'ts" etc.

Then again, I don't really recognize what Americans call "left wing" now as "left wing."

Exactly VICE seems to be as apolitical as they can so they can get broad audience.

Yes you nailed it. There’s nothing left wing about what most people o here keep saying wrt to something like Vice

Horseshoe Theory : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

This implies Vice media was some kind of far leftist media company. It’s not it’s just a bit edgy and punk. I think they try stay away from politics (as much as its possible).

Vice is a liberal company.

Maybe “left versus right” is too simplistic of a mental model and we obscure important information about political beliefs trying to shoehorn everything into a single, arbitrary dimension?

Yes. We have been conditioned to think of politics as a linear thing where the sum of beliefs fit nicely in a point between a set point on the left and a set point on the right. In reality it’s so much more complex and really depends on the relative point in a more dimensional political space that you are peering at them from…

For instance—I see such huge parallels between today’s progressive left and the “moral majority” types that I really can’t functionally separate them but for the gods and scriptures driving the moralities that they preach. At least from the perspective I see them from, which is probably best described as “classic liberalism”, they are essentially identical. It’s also the reason that both of those movements tended to view classical liberalism as anathematic. Their perspective seems to be is that intolerance of outside beliefs and thoughts except their own is their most important quality, so they work to suppress.

Are you talking about progressive left that are socially that way or more? Morality isn’t really part of the economic left (which includes social Justice).

I agree liberals and “moral majority” (which are one and the same really) are similar.

Since the convo is left vs right, do you have any opinions on people on the left who aren’t liberals? They don’t sound like the two groups you discussed.

I personally don’t have any of my views suppressed in a number of communities (not HN of course hah)

There is nothing counter culturish about the left wing now. If anything, right wing is the new counter culture.

Mainstream society in the US is still liberal with a strain of neoliberalism running through it, so anything far from that could be counter culture.

Nope, Vice media is a capitalist corporation, so no it was never left wing. It makes sense that an edgy founder of a capitalist corp. could go far to the right, as that is acceptably within the system that preserves private wealth.

Perhaps by left wing you meant liberal. There are some (very few) examples of rich people that became class traitors, Engels was one, but usually they have some distance (e.g. via inheritance, as with Engels) from how the money was made.

I think it depends a lot on what you think of as "left wing". They were also known for "a top-down ethos of male entitlement at Vice, where women said they felt like just another party favor at an organization where partying often was an extension of the job": https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/24/vice-founders-apologize-fo...

Being sexist and toxic internally is consistent with organisations that preach gender equity.

You’re not supposed to say the quiet parts out loud when you’re such a toxic person based on this statement.

Nothing to do with me. Just noticing that when a company makes loud statements about equity then they’re inevitably accused of a toxic work environment. Last notable example was npm inc a few years ago. You’ve probably noticed the same.

> You’ve probably noticed the same.

I notice you're the same who mistakenly provided a simplified and thus incorrect definition of reactionary.

I'm not a reactionary so I'm not noticing the same.

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reactionary

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reactionary

- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/react...

One continue name calling and referring to me as say conceited. Or find some fallacy. Instead of understanding it is not big deal but reactionary is clearly about reacting to political progress.

This is what you linked to: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

I implore any one to check out the politics definition list there and see how generic and white washed the definitions are. I checked a few.

Oh god it's the person from the other thread.

1. Cambridge agrees with Oxford and me and the rest aren't credible sources. As Oxford and Cambridge say, reactionary is reacting to political change, not to exclusively left wing change.

2. I didn't call you names or say you were conceited.

3. More to the point: why are you responding on different threads? I clearly do not wish to communicate with you and the only reason I'm seeing this is because blocks don't work on mobile. Please stop.

> the rest aren't credible sources.

Besides your own personal beliefs as to who is biased and impartial, why?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/react... Page says: "a person who is opposed to political or social change or new ideas: Reactionaries are preventing reforms. SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases Custom, tradition & conformity Americanization anti-classical anti-conventional anti-institutional anti-traditional conventionalized conventionally crowd custom demi-monde multicultural multiculturalism multiculturally non-classical non-conservative ultra-conservatism ultra-conservative ultra-traditional unconventional unconventionally"

> not to exclusively left wing change

The above speaks for itself.

> 3. More to the point: why are you responding on different threads?

My post included: > I notice you're the same who mistakenly provided a simplified and thus incorrect definition of reactionary.

This isn't a good faith reading of my comment.

--

Final entry. Don't take either of our words for it. If interested in where reactionary comes from, any one can read about pivotal incidents like the Thermidorian Reaction via two good books going over the history of The Terror: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-french-revolutio... https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/terror-in-the-french-revolutio...

> Does every fringe political thing wrap around? In other words if you move super far to the left, do you end up wrapping back around on the right wing?

That’s how the Proud Boys were created - as a response to Antifa violence.

I looked for 30 min. I found no evidence from my own searching and asking some new media acquaintances. No one can show me where Gavin and Proud Boys was started by any [far] leftist or involved any far leftists.

In fact I can’t even find Vice being created by a single far leftist.

I also only found one or two sources denying that Proud Boys is not [far] right wing. Including sympathizers.

Do you have any knowledge on what type of [far] leftist Gavin or any Proud Boy was?

Also perhaps I’m not as knowledgeable. How is it wrapping around if different people are reacting? Antifa is about anti fascism. It isn’t about being far left. Antifa isn’t only anarchist or communist.

Any information you or any one else has would help me a ton. Id love to add this topic to my substack. But I don’t want to repeat what you wrote without it making sense.

> No one can show me where Gavin and Proud Boys was started by any [far] leftist or involved any far leftists.

Nobody is claiming this. It seems like you didn’t read the comment you’re replying to.

> Antifa is about anti fascism.

And the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democratic republic run by its people. Sometimes things have a meaning that goes beyond how they would like to be perceived.

> other words if you move super far to the left, do you end up wrapping back around on the right wing?

> That’s how the Proud Boys were created - as a response to Antifa violence.

You quoted something talking about wrapping around. However you talked about being reactionary. Being reactionary isn’t wrapping around any more. It goes one way since the left and right wing paradigms were established in the 1700s (or since power/hierarchies first formed between people).

Reactionary is reacting to power and tradition. Which is what antifa is. However it’s not what Proud Boys are. It’s a negative thing aka reactionary create a powerful reaction or response to a leftist decentralized minor movement.

I have studied political science and helped on a paper on reactionaries so I got carried away assuming you meant reactionaries can go from far left to far right or even talking about reactionaries. Also I assumed you were talking politically in a political discussion.

> Sometimes things have a meaning that goes beyond how they would like to be perceived.

And sometimes they don’t have meaning beyond. The example you gave is correct, yes.

Also what does antifa mean beyond anti fascist and what I described above?

—

> Also perhaps I’m not as knowledgeable? How is it wrapping around if different people are reacting. Antifa is about anti fascism. It isn’t about being far left. Antifa isn’t only anarchist or communist.

You didn’t respond to any of this. I wrote 3 lines about antifa. You responded to one.

I also specifically asked:

> …How is it wrapping

My entire issue and explanation was about the way you wrote what you wrote. Too much vagueness when responding to wrapping around being the discussion.

While you didn’t respond to any questions or concerns. I have revolutionary optimistic however so I still give you the respect of a full laid out response.

Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

You don’t need to ask me what antifa is beyond ‘fighting fascism’. You know that too. Stop pretending you don’t or that you’re being respectful, it’s very clear you’re not. You understand the DPRK analogy. You know who antifa is. You’re too intelligent not to.

This is “negative”, or as normal people would put it, bad. If you think using words like “negative” makes for intelligent discourse, you’re not correct. Likewise mentioning your ‘studies’ is still the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy.

Honestly judging by ‘studies’ (not degree) and ‘I have revolutionary optimism’ I feel like you’re in high school.

There’s a great chrome extension that lets you block people on hacker news. You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak.

> Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Who is saying otherwise?? are you equating me with Antifa or something? You keep pretending I believe I’m so smart. I don’t think I am. I believe I’m a lumpenprole. I know what I know. Nothing more

I don’t know what you keep saying about me. Do you enjoy appealing to the status quo or centrism or moderation or civility?

So like I was saying to my audience:

Some people don’t understand what reactionary means…some people think communism isn’t reactionary. Then again those people typically don’t know what communism is. Nor socialism. Usually they don’t have much education outside the Global North or other privileges.

The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority. I’m asking others to be at my level and understand what words mean. So I don’t have to talk down to them.

Alas, on you go. Also fallacies are a fallacy. It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie.

> You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak.

We are all cliches, comrade.

> Who is saying otherwise?

You are. You are pretending that one group of violent morons you like is not reactionary, and the other group of violent morons you dislike are reactionary. The definition of reactionary is at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ...

> Are you equating me with Antifa

Yes.

> The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority.

You write in pseudo-academic speak and mention your "studies"

> So like I was saying to my audience

This conversation is from two days ago. I'm your only audience.

> It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie.

I'm not sure why you equate non-extremism with "techbro" or "VC bro".

> petit bourgeoisie

(emoji trash can icon)

> Also fallacies are a fallacy.

God. I fear for the future.

Anyway, apparently I'd uninstalled this https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-blocklist/cgphk... but congrats on getting me to reconfigure it.

I’ll respond to this later. This person couldn’t stick to their threat of blocking me.

Nonetheless we can learn from this that centrists can not see their own perspective.

They related me with antifa. What? That might be the silliest thing ever. Antifa?? I barely know what it is.

Notice they went to a mainstream dictionary for the definition of reactionary. Not a non American imperialist influenced source. Though likely Wikipedia I assume would provide the same correct pol sci concept for reactionary.

So often we see people on HN or Reddit get so close to understanding the concept but they miss it even while reading the definition.

One major issue is their incessant need to be correct. Their worldview can’t possibly be incorrect. To crack that is to crack society.

To finalize a point to stop incorrect false information.

This user chose to quote one specific generic dictionary just to try to be right when they are not political commentators yet insult any one else who is.

Mixed in with many insults.

Look up most other definitions for reactionary. Not even [advanced] political science only. The Google built in dictionary says

> “adjective (of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform. "reactionary attitudes toward women's rights"

> Similar: conservative, right-wing, rightist, ultra-conservative, ultra-right, alt-right, blimpish, diehard, traditionalist, conventional, traditional, old-fashioned, progressive, true-blue

> Opposite: radical, progressive

No doubt if nailer ever looks at this they will find an excuse that this definition is somehow wrong.

Nobody has insulted you. The Oxford English Dictionary is one of the oldest most authoritative dictionaries in the world, you should learn about it. Enjoy the block.

There was nothing fringe with any one on the left. Vice is center left media. There’s nothing to wrap around to when it’s mostly centrists