Current Events > C/D: Fish Hook Theory

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

it has sooo many examples

C

---

that gets a big C from me, dawg
---

What the f*** am I looking at
---

Timohtep posted...

What the f*** am I looking at

The theory that centrists and the far right aren't all that different
---

Anyone care to explain how centrist and the extreamly right are similar other than not 100% agreeing with the left?
---

"I'm a centrist!
Also i don't like black ppl"

happens all the time here.
---

big ass C
---

Goats posted...

"I'm a centrist!
Also i don't like black ppl"

happens all the time here.

"If you're not a socialist you're a racist!"
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Anyone care to explain how centrist and the extreamly right are similar other than not 100% agreeing with the left?

you won't get a real answer. "if you're not with us you're against us" is a platitude of the far left
---

Timohtep posted...

What the f*** am I looking at

A fish hook

---

So the middle right is farther than the far right?

Because that is what this image shows

This makes sense, if you assume that conservatism and centrism both advocate the status quo.
The "far right" however, tends to be reactionary, going in the opposite direction of whatever the left wants.

two people have me blocked posted in a row lol
---

biggernails posted...

two people have me blocked posted in a row lol

Not me

MabusIncarnate posted...

Timohtep posted...

What the f*** am I looking at

A fish hook

A theory
---

while there is merit to the whole "centrists siding with conservatives on issues doesn't make them much better than conservatives is true, the far left tries way too hard to make everything and everyone their enemy if you don't precisely agree with all the shit they spew
---

I wouldn't say centrists are like the far right.

They're just so invested in being "in the center" that they constantly invite far rightists and their propaganda to fuck them in the ass so they can regurgitate it as alternative viewpoints that deserve to be heard.

---

I think it's just alt-righters identifying mistakenly as centrist, not that centrists actually are similar to alt-right.
---

I disagree

---

CappinGoat posted...

I think it's just alt-righters identifying mistakenly as centrist, not that centrists actually are similar to alt-right.

This is far more accurate. I see hardcore Trumpers claiming that they are centrists and moderates all the time

Petrichoric posted...

CappinGoat posted...

I think it's just alt-righters identifying mistakenly as centrist, not that centrists actually are similar to alt-right.

This is far more accurate. I see hardcore Trumpers claiming that they are centrists and moderates all the time

---

The dissident left and the dissident right have a lot more in common than they (or the left, anyway) are willing to believe, but both are somewhat moderate.

The far left and the far right have common roots in 19th century / early 20th century syndicalism, but have definitely drifted far apart. It does seem that as of late though, some fringe strains of the far right have been flirting with far left axioms and vice versa to a lesser extent.

But yeah, the far right (or at least the hitlerist neo-nazi strain) are basically authoritarian centrists. There are other, more esoteric strains that would be safely classified as far left and far(ther) right save for a few critical axioms disqualifying them in the case of the former.
---

Well nobody answered my question so I guess that's a D
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Anyone care to explain how centrist and the extreamly right are similar other than not 100% agreeing with the left?

the "far right" and centrists both tend to be skeptical of both purely capitalist and purely socialist economic systems, and derive their policy from elements of both. that's about as far as the similarities go.

far right is a pretty vague term in the grand scheme of things, and the definition gets even blurrier when you consider that its leftmost fringes are essentially neo-stalinists.
---

Isn't it called the Horseshoe Theory?

---

---

DrizztLink posted...

Isn't it called the Horseshoe Theory?

No, Horseshoe Theory is "both sides" bullshit pushed by Centrists


---

The right is a lot closer to the center these days than the left is because the Democrats have run so far left it's insane. In 2009 they claimed they weren't socialists, in 2019 they're promoting the Green New Deal, which by many definitions is communism combined with mass firearms confiscation. The right... we still just want a strong economy and job growth.
---

r4X0r posted...

the Democrats have run so far left it's insane

always cracks me up
---

Most of the shrieking about the far right is to distract from how far the left has gone.

"How extremists view the world" is a better name.
---

biggernails posted...

the far left tries way too hard to make everything and everyone their enemy if you don't precisely agree with all the shit they spew

which is rather fascist and ironic
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

No, Horseshoe Theory is "both sides" bullshit pushed by Centrists

Images aren't loading for me, misunderstood the discussion.

My bad.

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

DrizztLink posted...

Isn't it called the Horseshoe Theory?

No, Horseshoe Theory is "both sides" bullshit pushed by Centrists

horseshoe theory is basically political geocentrism where centrism is the earth

fishhook theory is basically political heliocentrism where centrism is the sun

things get fun when it is understood that the sun is not the center of the universe, and that there are a myriad of other dynamics at play
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Anyone care to explain how centrist and the extreamly right are similar other than not 100% agreeing with the left?

Liberals have always been the ones who moved the dial, even back when they were "progressives", and even more so when they were classical liberals.

Conservatives like things the way the are. That's why "conserve" is the root part of the name. They're comfortable, and dislike and fear uncertainty.

Reactionaries (what we call the "far right" now), want things they way they used to be, or (in the farthest right) an idealist fantasy of how things used to be. Their anthem may as well be the All in the Family theme song.

"Centrists" are just conservatives (as defined above) who the liberals can drag along into the future anyway, without too much fussing.

Libertarians are just weird.

I really haven't seen any actual evidence for fish hook theory, whereas I think there is (some) evidence for horse shoe theory on certain issues. The far left and far right for example both seem to believe that white people, in a society without social justice movements, would eventually end up oppressing other races. They just disagree as to whether or not that would be a good/correct thing. Whereas I don't really see centrists agreeing with the idea that such an outcome is inevitable or natural, and so they wouldn't align with either extreme.

Add in that fish hook theory allows extremists to re-define their extremism as being singularly opposed to the opposite extreme, rather than being honest about the fact that they also oppose many widely-accepted mainstream norms and values, and I'm extra skeptical. It seems like it's more of a rhetorical tactic to lump all their opposition together than an actual theory about the world.
---

snake1989 posted...

The far left and far right for example both seem to believe that white people, in a society without social justice movements, would eventually end up oppressing other races.

Almost. The ends of the Horseshoe are essentially Loki in the Avengers.
We need to be obedient to our betters, for the good of everyone. They just disagree on exactly how to do it, but the methods aren't too incredibly different.

It's funny when you realize the DNC is only slightly center-left compared to the rest of developed society.
---

The problem is that leftists too often demand 100% compliance or else you are against them.

While the Right doesn't get bothered if you don't agree with all their views.
---

OctaviaMelody30 posted...

The problem is that leftists too often demand 100% compliance or else you are against them.

While the Right doesn't get bothered if you don't agree with all their views.

"Obey or starve" is the endgame of both, though, if you think about it.

snake1989 posted...

The far left and far right for example both seem to believe that white people, in a society without social justice movements, would eventually end up oppressing other races. They just disagree as to whether or not that would be a good/correct thing.

this is not accurate in the case of the far left -- while socialists might not necessarily disagree with that assessment, it's not really relevant to the way socialist analysis works.

socialist analysis is based on class, which is an economic metric. characteristics such as race and gender, if included in the analysis, are usually also contextualized in terms of class (e.g. "black people are statistically poorer than white people, and are far more likely to be impoverished").

for the purposes of class analysis, there is not much difference between, say, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates.
---

OctaviaMelody30 posted...

The problem is that leftists too often demand 100% compliance or else you are against them.

While the Right doesn't get bothered if you don't agree with all their views.

You've got to be fucking kidding me here.

You're seriously calling the breed of politicians that produced McCarthy not "demanding 100% compliance or else you're against them"

---

fishhook to me means doing a girl doggystyle and hooking her mouth like a fish >_<
---

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony party's alignment. But because, I am enlightened by my Centrism.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Their anthem may as well be the All in the Family theme song.

the most moderate and politically conventional reactionaries, perhaps, that idealize america anywhere between 1777 and 1971.

in general though, common reactionaries either prefer to turn the clock back before 1517 or 1789, or at least appropriate the systems or moral memeplexes in place at that time to the modern world. some want to turn the clock back even further: before 476, before 1500 bc, before 5000 bc, even pre-agriculture, though the primitivist strain spans from left to right.

you can basically pinpoint the strain of a reactionary by asking what year things went terribly wrong.

things get weird though, when you consider that there is a subset of reactionaries that are also simultaneously futurists that are applying axiomatic lenses to their analysis i have yet to wrap my head around.
---