History Main / GoldenMeanFallacy

* * And again, introducing degrees [[https://xkcd.com/1923/ Felsius]].

* Of the Manticore political parties in ''Literature/HonorHarrington'', the Centrist party is the one [[AuthorTract with the "correct" policies]], while [[StrawmanPolitical the Liberals, Progressives and Conservatives are wrong and often evil]]. However the Manticore Conservative party is basically the nobility-party, and their views have little in common with those of real-life conservatives. The Liberal and Progressive party do have similar views to real-life left wing parties. [[FoxNewLiberal The one sympathetic Liberal character we meet outright states that she disagrees with the Liberal party on everything except their strong stance against genetic slavery]], which doesn't exist in real-life. Meanwhile, the Centrist party sounds a lot like staunch real-life Libertarians, who feel that a progressive tax rate is a dangerous step on a slipery slope towards communism. By most modern-day metrics, there actually isn't a party in Manticore to the right of the Centrists, making the name rather false advertising. Either by the in-universe party, or the author.

* Of the Manticore political parties in ''Literature/HonorHarrington'', the Centrist party is the one [[AuthorTract with the "correct" policies]], while [[StrawmanPolitical the Liberals, Progressives and Conservatives are wrong and often evil]]. However the Manticore Conservative party is basically the nobility-party, and their views have little in common with those of real-life conservatives. The Liberal and Progressive party do have similar views to real-life left wing parties. [[FoxNewLiberals The one sympathetic Liberal character we meet outright states that she disagrees with the Liberal party on everything except their strong stance against genetic slavery]], which doesn't exist in real-life. Meanwhile, the Centrist party sounds a lot like staunch real-life Libertarians, who feel that a progressive tax rate is a dangerous step on a slipery slope towards communism. By most modern-day metrics, there actually isn't a party in Manticore to the right of the Centrists, making the name rather false advertising. Either by the in-universe party, or the author.

[[folder:Films - Animated]]

* Wiki/RationalWiki covers this under [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy Balance fallacy]].

* Parodied with the ''Website/TheOnion'' article "[[http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-admits-it-was-only-behind-destruction-o,37699/ Government Admits It Was Only Behind Destruction of North Tower]]" in which the American government DID bomb the north tower, only for a random suicide plane to crash into the south tower.

* A key part of Sukarno's political philosophy as the first leader of a united and coherent {{UsefulNotes/Indonesia}} was "Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations among representatives", which he considered an incarnation of democracy more appropriate for a nation largely made up of villages wherein wise chiefs and elders would preside over and make decisions on the basis of tempered but lively and open debate. While this in itself did not outright kill political discourse, this was largely on the part of personal intervention by Sukarno, who envisioned a diverse coalition of nationalist, Islamist, and socialist elements, rather than by any real systemic integrity. When the communist element was subject to a bloody wave of politicide by the public in 1965 (considered genocide by some, as ethnic and religious minorities were frequently targeted under the cover of anticommunism) and Suharto took power, his forced merger of the opposition into two dysfunctional parties under this same principle completely did in the spirit of ideological commitment outside of Pancasila, the vague Indonesian "state philosophy", and Islamic democratic parties. While partisanship has recovered to a small degree in recent years, incongruous political compromises are frequently made in the name of consensus and unity. President Joko Widodo, for example, often paints himself as a committed ally of Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto, his own appointee...and his fiercest political rival, running as Widodo's opponent in both the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections.

* A key part of Sukarno's political philosophy as the first leader of a united and coherent UsefulNotes/Indonesia was "Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations among representatives", which he considered an incarnation of democracy more appropriate for a nation largely made up of villages wherein wise chiefs and elders would preside over and make decisions on the basis of tempered but lively and open debate. While this in itself did not outright kill political discourse, this was largely on the part of personal intervention by Sukarno, who envisioned a diverse coalition of nationalist, Islamist, and socialist elements, rather than by any real systemic integrity. When the communist element was subject to a bloody wave of politicide by the public in 1965 (considered genocide by some, as ethnic and religious minorities were frequently targeted under the cover of anticommunism) and Suharto took power, his forced merger of the opposition into two dysfunctional parties under this same principle completely did in the spirit of ideological commitment outside of Pancasila, the vague Indonesian "state philosophy", and Islamic democratic parties. While partisanship has recovered to a small degree in recent years, incongruous political compromises are frequently made in the name of consensus and unity. President Joko Widodo, for example, often paints himself as a committed ally of Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto, his own appointee...and his fiercest political rival, running as Widodo's opponent in both the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections.

* A key part of Sukarno's political philosophy as the first leader of a united and coherent [[UsefulNotes/Indonesia Republic of Indonesia]] was "Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations among representatives", which he considered an incarnation of democracy more appropriate for a nation largely made up of villages wherein wise chiefs and elders would preside over and make decisions on the basis of tempered but lively and open debate. While this in itself did not outright kill political discourse, this was largely on the part of personal intervention by Sukarno, who envisioned a diverse coalition of nationalist, Islamist, and socialist elements, rather than by any real systemic integrity. When the communist element was subject to a bloody wave of politicide by the public in 1965 (considered genocide by some, as ethnic and religious minorities were frequently targeted under the cover of anticommunism) and Suharto took power, his forced merger of the opposition into two dysfunctional parties under this same principle completely did in the spirit of ideological commitment outside of Pancasila, the vague Indonesian "state philosophy", and Islamic democratic parties. While partisanship has recovered to a small degree in recent years, incongruous political compromises are frequently made in the name of consensus and unity. President Joko Widodo, for example, often paints himself as a committed ally of Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto, his own appointee...and his fiercest political rival, running as Widodo's opponent in both the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections.

* Golda Meir wrote in her autobiography about meeting with a foreign ambassador who told her, "surely you must concede that, for the Germans to have been so hateful, the Jews must have done SOMETHING to warrant such hate?" She described the man's utter befuddlement at her silently standing up and walking out in resopnse to his "reasonable question," and how he continued to remain confused as to why she had taken such offense, even years later!

* UsefulNotes/MartinLutherKingJr began thinking so later in his life, as said in the [[http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html Letter from a Birmingham Jail]], saying that the worst enemies of the black cause weren't the ones openly opposing them, such as the openly racist politicians or Klan members, but the "white moderate" "who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" since they would slow the activists' fight to a crawl, or even a complete stop, while still pretending to agree with them. In this case, he was reacting to an open letter from 6 clergyman, who attempted to suggest that King's "extreme" position of nonviolent civil disobedience was just as problematic as leaving Jim Crow be, and that the proper solution would simply be to rely on the law to quietly sort itself out over time. This, of course, ran into the exact same problem as the slavery example above, and it was ultimately King's firm commitment to his position that got the Jim Crow laws abolished over the next decade.
* In the 2019 British election, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn took a neutral stance on Brexit by supporting second referendum while not explicitly issuing a pro- or anti-Brexit position.[[note]]While the Labour Party is very pro-[=EU=], Corbyn has historically held anti-EU views as he saw the European Union as too conservative and capitalist[[/note]] However, this approach backfired as nearly all pro-Brexit voters voted for the explicitly pro-Brexit Conservatives while several anti-Brexit voters either boycotted the election or voted for other pro-EU parties like the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party. Many pundits cited Labour's indecisive stance on Brexit as a contributing factor towards their defeat in the election.

# ... one of the two options is concretely and factually true while the other is false. For example, some say cyanide is a lethal and dangerous poison for people and should never be consumed (unless you want to die). The opposite position would be that cyanide is nutritious and beneficial to your health and should be consumed frequently. The Golden Mean Fallacy would state that cyanide should therefore be consumed in moderation. But cyanide is really a lethal poison and should not be ingested, not even with moderation!

Sometimes there are multiple compromises, and while one could be this trope, the other one might not. For example, vegetarian workers might ask to their employers to serve meatless in the cafeteria, while non-vegan workers don't want to renounce to meat. A good compromise (unless costs and logistics make it unfeasible at the moment) would be to organize the menus so that both meatless dishes and meat are served. The Golden Mean Fallacy would be putting only a tiny portion of meat in every dish.

[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/{{XKCD}} https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/semicontrolled_demolition.png]]]]

[[quoteright:320:[[Webcomic/{{XKCD}} https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/semicontrolled_demolition.png]]]]

* A Japanese folktale [[InvokedTrope invokes]] this: Two hungry cats are arguing over two rice cakes -- one large, one small -- and take their dispute to a sage. The sage decides that the only way to solve the argument is to eat part of the large rice cake so they are the same size, but he intentionally takes a too-large bite so that he subsequently has to take a bite of the other rice cake to equalize them again. He does this until both are gone, ultimately saying "there, now you're both equally dissatisfied." By giving a solution that is equally distasteful to both parties, the sage was giving AnAesop about greed and envy. The fact that as obligate carnivores, cats cannot actually digest rice cakes making the dispute moot isn’t addressed.

* The Compromise of 1850 in the United States was designed to avert an impending crisis over slavery by giving both sides some of what they wanted. The result was the compromise simply kicked the can down the road ten years, and fell prey to Okrent’s Law besides.[[note]]The law states "the pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." In other words, either the abolitionists were correct that there was a moral imperative to abolish slavery across the nation, or the expansionists were right that it was a political question that each territory should decide for itself, and attempting to indulge both points of view was an inherently incorrect approach.[[/note]] The following decade caused the battle lines on both sides of the issue to harden considerably, and practically guaranteed that the issue would be solved with guns, not words.

* The trend towards centrism and the major focus on making {{Conscription}} equal (‘load equality’) for all Israelis (as some Ultra Orthodox Jews are exempt from service so they can focus on their religious studies) in the Israeli political climate around the 2013 elections, which led to the adamantly centrist Israeli Future Party ([[RealityIsUnrealistic yes, that’s its name]]) winning almost one sixth of the seats in the Knesset (the Israeli house of representatives). This trend was thoroughly mocked in a skit on the Israeli satire show, featuring the representative of the ‘extremist sect’ of the Israeli centre, who insisted on ‘load equality’ in ''everything''--for instance, when he sees a man stealing his bicycle on the street, he protests and gives him a tool to break locks and steal everyone else’s, too, in the name of ‘load equality in crime’.

The fallacy is not merely saying that compromise between opposing viewpoints is good. It is saying that extreme solutions are ''never'' reasonable or correct, and the correct solution can ''always'' be found in the middle. The fallacy could be resumed in three variations:
* 1) The compromise is debatable, because one of the two options is concretely and factually true while the other is false. For example, some say cyanide is a lethal and dangerous poison for people and should never be consumed (unless you want to die). The opposite position would be that cyanide is nutritious and beneficial to your health and should be consumed frequently. The Golden Mean Fallacy would state that cyanide should therefore be consumed in moderation. But cyanide is really a lethal poison and should not be ingested, not even with moderation!
* 2) The compromise is debatable, because it goes illogical or unreal. For example, a paramedic could state that a person lying on the ground is deceased, thus priority should be given to the rescue of other injured people. Another paramedic could argue that the victim is still alive and first-aid should be given immediately. The Golden Mean Fallacy would state that the victim is partially alive and partially dead, or undead, which is nonsense.
* 3) The compromise is debatable because, while achievable, it is morally unacceptable or unsatisfying for one or both parties (although that may depend on the context and the values involved), or brings more trouble than the two options. For example, two parents disapprove the current boyfriend of their daughter because he is poor, and they want her to marry the spoiled son of a rich family. She instead wants to live her own life without being forced to an arranged marriage with people she doesn't want even to talk to. The Golden Mean Fallacy would be letting the girl choose among a selection of candidates approved by her parents. But this could still leave her unhappy because she has to break with the one she loves and marry someone who is the LesserOfTwoEvils!

[[Films - Animated]]

->'''Kang:''' ''[disguised as Bob Dole]'' Abortions for all!\\

-->-- ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons''

* 1) The compromise is debatable, because one of the two options is concretely and factually true while the other is false. For example, some say cyanide is a lethal and dangerous poison for people and should never be consumed (unless you want to die). The opposite position would be that cyanide is nutritious and beneficial to your health and should be consumed frequently. The Golden Mean Fallacy would state that cyanide should therefore be consumed in moderation.
* 2) The compromise is debatable, because it goes illogical or unreal. For example, a paramedic could state that a person lying on the ground is deceased, and thus priority should be given to the rescue of other injured people. Another paramedic could argue that the victim is still alive and first-aid should be done immediately to save him/her. The Golden Mean Fallacy would state that the victim is partially alive and partially dead, or undead, which is nonsense.

The fallacy is not merely saying that compromise between opposing viewpoints is good. It is saying that extreme solutions are ''never'' reasonable or correct, and the correct solution can ''always'' be found in the middle. For example: some say cyanide is a lethal and dangerous poison and should never be consumed (unless you want to die). The opposite position would be that cyanide is nutritious and beneficial to your health and should be consumed frequently. The Golden Mean Fallacy would state that cyanide should therefore be consumed in moderation.

* ''Comicbook/{{Knightfall}}'': [[ComicBook/{{Azrael}} Jean-Paul Valley]] tried to apply this logic - and failed miserably - when he temporarily became Franchise/{{Batman}} after [[Characters/BatmanRoguesGalleryPart1 Bane]] broke Bruce Wayne's back. Having been brainwashed as a child by his father into believing that the radical Roman Catholic sect they belonged to demanded that [[PayEvilUntoEvil evildoers be slaughtered by "avenging angels"]], Valley experiences a HeroicBSOD when, as Batman, he finds a serial killer at his mercy (hanging by one hand over a vat full of molten steel in a foundry) and is tormented by visions of both his late father and the medieval French saint, Dumas, who founded their breakaway movement. The elder Valley demands that his son shoot his blades at the killer so that he will fall into the vat, while St. Dumas insists that he must [[SaveTheVillain save anyone in danger]], no matter how reprehensible they are. Unable to reach a decision, Jean-Paul finally screams: [[TakeAThirdOption "I choose neither one!"]] The inevitable result is that the murderer eventually loses his grip and falls to his death - which is even worse than it would first appear, since the murderer had to be kept alive so that Batman could find his most recent victim, who'd been placed in a sadistic torture device, with the result that the victim died too.

** {{Discussed}} in ''[[Literature/XWingSeries X-Wing: Isard's Revenge]]''. The New Republic has made claims about an ex-Imperial warlord; the warlord has publicly made claims that are the exact opposite. Rogue Squadron, watching the news, note glumly that most people will probably assume the truth is in the middle somewhere.

** Hermione's misadventure with S.P.E.W. in ''Literature/HarryPotterAndTheGobletOfFire'' came under a lot of fire for essentially arguing that enslaving House-elves isn't wrong because [[HappinessInSlavery "they like being enslaved"]], only abusing them is (c.f. the Malfoy family to Dobby, and Sirius Black to Kreacher). Rowling meant that arc as a satire of well-intentioned social activism that [[OpinionOverride doesn't take the actual wishes of its subjects into account]], but it just came off as [[CluelessAesop tone-deaf and historically illiterate]], particularly from [[ValuesDissonance the point of view of American readers]].

* The [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_boundary_dispute Alaska Boundary Dispute]]: Because of ambiguous phrasing in the ''Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825'', a three-way dispute arose between the U.S., Canada and British Columbia on the borders of the Alaska Panhandle. At one point this nearly came to violence over the death of a pig, only averted because the commanders in the field agreed that would be [[SillyReasonForWar profoundly stupid.]] The tribunal that ultimately decided the question basically split the U.S. and Canadian positions, leading to a result that was ''definitely'' inconsistent with the wording of the Convention.

* Critics of TheHorseshoeEffect argued against it on the grounds that it presents centrist liberalism as the only option for society to take, which can end up being nothing more than calling for the status quo. Mentioning this trope is also something of a BerserkButton for individuals on either end of the political spectrum, who often resent the suggestion that they have anything ideologically in common with the individuals on the opposite end. Radicals often have their own versions of the Horseshoe Effect where they claim [[UnwittingPawn that centrists serve to only bolster the side they oppose and are most prone to supporting and being swayed by them]] (this is often [[https://www.theweek.co.uk/103810/what-is-fish-hook-theory called]] the [[https://psmag.com/social-justice/an-end-to-horseshoe-theory Fish Hook Effect]]). Best practice is not to take the existence of this trope as hard-and-fast evidence that opposing political groups or governments ''always'' end up ideologically similar to each other; after all, it's the Horseshoe ''Effect'', not the Horseshoe ''Law''.