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

->'''Kang:''' (disguised as Bob Dole) Abortions for all!\\
'''Crowd:''' Booo!\\
'''Kang:''' All right, then. No abortions for anyone!\\
'''Crowd:''' Booo!\\
'''Kang:''' Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!\\
'''Crowd:''' Yaaay!
-->--''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons''

Most people know that there are two sides to every issue: their side, and the wrong side. Authors (and people in general) who subscribe to the Golden Mean Fallacy have another outlook. They believe that there are in fact three sides: the side of the complete morons to the left of them, the side of the complete morons to the right of them, and their own side, which combines the good points of each in sublime harmony while avoiding all the bad. If one position is argued to be superior ''solely'' because it is in the middle, then this is the Golden Mean Fallacy, aka "Argument to Moderation."

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, e.g. some say cyanide is a lethal and dangerous poison and should never be consumed. 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.

The Golden Mean Fallacy is turning both sides of an argument into [[StrawCharacter Strawman Politicals]] and declaring that the only sensible approach is to take the middle road. There is a number of benefits to this. You avoid offending either side too much, since they can each take comfort in the fact that their enemies get just as much ridicule; you get to come off as a sensible person who thinks for oneself and doesn't blindly follow any one party line; and you get twice as many people to insult and make fun of.

Another handy (and sneaky) thing with this method is that you don't actually have to be very moderate to use it. A StrawmanPolitical is by definition hideously more extreme and unreasonable than any position in RealLife [[note]]PoesLaw notwithstanding[[/note]], so there is nothing stopping you from presenting a horrific parody of one side of the issue, then presenting a horrific parody of the other side of the issue, and finally presenting your own actual opinions as a moderate option. It will look very sane and reasonable in comparison, even if in RealLife it would be considered quite extremist.

The technique is known among American political strategists as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window the Overton Window]].

A few notes about this trope: It does not mean giving equal weight to two opposing viewpoints, when in reality one is far more credible than the other. That is called "False Balance" or "False Equivalence." It is also not saying that moderate compromises are always wrong. Sometimes an option somewhere in between two polar oppositions really ''is'' the best choice; this trope is when the author claims the best choice ''must'' be found in the middle. In other words, it is the opposite of the [[FalseDichotomy False Dichotomy]], or [[TakeAThirdOption Take A Third Option]] turned up to 11. In conclusion, [[SelfDemonstratingArticle use neither the False Dichotomy nor the Golden Mean Fallacy,]] [[HypocriticalHumor but reason somewhere in the middle.]]

Compare StupidNeutral. Contrast with TakeAThirdOption and BothSidesHaveAPoint. Named for Creator/{{Aristotle}}'s concept of virtue, which presented the golden mean as the excellent ideal of behavior. Obviously, he didn't consider it a fallacy. Aristotle's golden mean also often ''did'' lean slightly towards excess or deficiency, rather than being precisely in the middle, and varied from situation to situation. However, he also said that some actions were so bad that they could ''never'' be justified, let alone be made to appear moderate.

-----
!!Examples:

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder:Anime and Manga]]
* ''Anime/MartianSuccessorNadesico'': When the crew of the ''Nadesico'' realized that they couldn't negotiate with the Earth forces, they [[spoiler:tried to appeal to the Jovians, only to realize that they were just as single-minded.]] This led to their [[spoiler:stealing the Artifact, which allowed Boson Jumping, thus preventing Jupiter and Earth from fighting any longer for the time being.]]
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Comic Books]]
* ''Comicbook/ExMachina'': This comic is actually pretty fair, even charitable, in its representations of both sides of a political argument. It's the positioning of protagonist Mitchell Hundred as between both political parties that occasionally invokes this trope.
* ''Comicbook/{{Knightfall}}'': Jean-Paul Valley tried to apply this logic - and failed miserably - when he temporarily became Batman after 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.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Film]]
* ''Film/TeamAmericaWorldPolice'' epitomizes this as far the Americans are concerned. Conservatives are "dicks" who are so aggressive that they cause as much harm as good, while liberals are "pussies" who are too wimpy to get anything done in the first place, but sometimes have to stop the "dicks" from going too far. (Of course, neither of these characterizations are necessarily correct, but never mind.) Unlike ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'', which often has a character find the golden mean, the film contrasts both opposing viewpoints with "assholes" (like terrorists or the movie's BigBad, Kim Jong-Il) who make the "dicks" necessary.
* ''Film/TheBirthOfANation''. No, really. Siding neither with slavery nor with the "extremists" who want actual race equality, it supports the "neutral middle ground" of [[ValuesDissonance Jim Crow laws]]. The filmmakers seem to have thought that making UsefulNotes/AbrahamLincoln a sympathetic character and including an [[NeverMessWithGranny ass-kicking black heroine]] weighs up making the Ku Klux Klan [[DesignatedHero the heroes of the story]]. Ultimately, the movie tries so desperately to be "neutral" that it becomes monstrous.
* ''Film/TheDarkKnightRises'' takes this approach in its discussion of [[RealitySubtext class politics.]] The first half of the film focuses on the intrigues of Gotham's upper class and rich, unscrupulous businesspeople like Daggett, while working class characters like Bane and Selina imply or state outright that the people are tired of being abused by the rich and planning to revolt, with Selina telling Bruce that "there's a storm coming." Eventually, she gets her wish. [[TheRevolutionWillNotBeCivilized Guess what]] [[ChaoticEvil happens after that?]]
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Literature]]
* In ''Literature/AnitaBlake: Vampire Hunter'', the title character considers conservatives to be bigoted troglodytes who want to exterminate vampires for being different, and liberals to be air-headed idealists who think that vampires are harmless fluffy fanged bunnies and forget that they are dangerous and not entirely human. Since Anita is a complete CanonSue, her views are entirely accurate.
* ''Literature/AngelsAndDemons'' by Creator/DanBrown. His strawman extremes are atheism and the Roman Catholic Church; his "middle ground" is still religious, rather than agnostic. Or {{science|IsBad}} and the Catholic Church. Skepticism of Langdon's postmodernist interpretations of paganism is apparently ignorant, and the Catholic Church is apparently [[ChristianityIsCatholic guilty of any irrational thing any other sect of Christianity has ever said]].
* [[Literature/{{Illuminatus}} The Bavarian Illuminati]] however know that there must always be 5 sides.
* The Franchise/StarWarsExpandedUniverse novel ''[[Comicbook/XWingSeries Isard's Revenge]]'' deals with this. 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.
--> "It's called the gray fallacy. One person says white, another says black, and outside observers assume gray is the truth. The assumption of gray is sloppy, lazy thinking. The fact that one person is diametrically opposed to the truth does not then skew reality so the truth is no longer the truth."
* Embodied by the Triple Demons of Compromise from ''Literature/ThePhantomTollbooth''. One's tall and thin, one's short and fat, and the third is exactly like the other two. They are endlessly traveling in circles because the first says left, the second says right, and the third agrees with both of them. They always settle their differences by doing what none of them really want, leaving them in a permanently foul mood.
* In Creator/GKChesterton's ''Magic'', the Duke is prone to such flights of fancy as donating to both sides of the issue.
-->'''SMITH'''. [''Turning eagerly to the_ DOCTOR.''] But this is rather splendid. The Duke's given £50 to the new public-house.\\
'''HASTINGS'''. The Duke is very liberal. [''Collects papers.'']\\
'''DOCTOR'''. [''Examining his cheque.''] Very. But this is rather curious. He has also given £50 to the league for opposing the new public-house.
* In ''[[ComicStrip/{{Dilbert}} The Dilbert Principle]]'', the chapter "How to Get Your Way" suggests using the "Final Suggestion Maneuver" to get the last word in business meetings. The technique involves staying uninvolved throughout the entire meeting as conflicting suggestions are made, then chiming in at the last minute by disguising your suggestion as a composite of everyone else's. The theory behind this maneuver is that everyone will be so desperate to leave that they'll rush to accept your suggestion without questioning it.
* ''Literature/HarryPotter''
** In ''Literature/HarryPotterAndTheOrderOfThePhoenix'', Dolores Umbridge initially presents herself as representing a reasonable middle ground between tradition and change. She represents no such thing and just wants to make the [[TyrantTakesTheHelm changes she's going to make to Hogwarts anyway]] seem like they were carefully reasoned. However, her attempt at AffablyEvil is so bad that no one is fooled. From a political standpoint her position is blatantly obvious, though, her language being extremely middle-class conservative.
** In ''Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban'', Lupin tells an anecdote about a [[IKnowWhatYouFear boggart]] that came across two people at once; one was most afraid of flesh-eating slugs and the other was most afraid of headless corpses. The boggart, possibly attempting to combine "slug" and "headless", turned into half a slug, which, as Lupin points out, is not nearly as scary.
* Subverted in the JudgmentOfSolomon from the Old Testament. Two women each claim to be a boy's mother. Solomon cannot tell who is lying, so he declares that he will cut the baby in half and give each woman her 'share.' The boy's true mother gives up her claim so that the child lives, which reveals who truly loved him. Subverted in that Solomon never intended this as a legitimate solution but only a trap to catch out the liar, leading to the phrase "splitting the baby" when someone destroys the subject of a dispute rather than assign it to one party.
* Neatly illustrated by Creator/SamuelJohnson in ''The History of Rasselas''. Rasselas falls prey to this fallacy, and is called on it by his sister Nekayah (quoting their friend, the poet Imlac):
--> "'Nature sets her gifts on the right hand and on the left.' Those conditions which flatter hope and attract desire are so constituted that as we approach one we recede from another. There are goods so opposed that we cannot seize both, but by too much prudence may pass between them at too great a distance to reach either."
* [[Literature/TheBible Pontius Pilate's]] attempts not to execute Jesus but also not to incite a riot. [[SubvertedTrope He failed.]] (The real Pilate showed no qualms about doing things which provoked riots, and likely would have just slaughtered them. He'd killed people just for peacefully protesting taxes before, and was actually recalled for provoking revolt by this).
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Live-Action TV]]
* ''Series/LawAndOrder'' sometimes falls into this, with the creators admitting that their show has likely pissed off people on both sides of the aisle at some point.
** One notable example would be "Talking Points," which opened with someone firing on an Ann Coulter stand-in who was painted as a bigoted harridan… but then the shooter turned out to be a stem cell research advocate who was afraid that his endeavors were being poisoned by her rhetoric.
** At the end of the episode "Illegal," [=McCoy=] has finished preparing a report on whether or not a violent incident between police and protesters constituted a "police riot." He concludes that, after reading it, "Both sides will be angry with me." His deputy replies, "You probably got it right, then."
* ''Series/TheWestWing'', unusually for a political show, subverts this. Since it's about the President, there's plenty of compromise, but not because it's better; it's just what can get passed by an opposing Congress. And it's not unheard-of for one side to win. The merits of moderation were a matter of some heated debate in one episode:
-->'''Josh''': If we had a bench full of moderates in '54, Separate But Equal would still be on the books, and this place would still have two sets of drinking fountains.
-->'''Toby''': Moderate means temperate, it means responsible. It means thoughtful.
-->'''Josh''': It means cautious. It means unimaginative.
-->'''Toby''': It means being more concerned about making decisions than about making history.
-->'''Josh''': Is that really the greatest tragedy in the world, that we nominated somebody who made an impression instead of some second-rate crowd pleaser?
-->'''Toby''': The ability... The ability to see both sides of an argument is not the hallmark of an inferior intellect.
-->'''Josh''': What about the vast arenas of debate a moderate won't even address? A mind like Lang? Let them pick a conservative with a mind like Justice Brady had. You can hate his position, but he was a visionary. He blew the whole thing open. He changed the whole argument...
** They manage, with some finagling, to get one liberal judge and one conservative judge to balance each other out, as opposed to the one moderate judge that they were arguing over. This allows for both positions to be represented while not having to settle for "moderation."
* In an episode of ''Series/LittleMosqueOnThePrairie'', Mercy's Muslim community was divided (again): the more liberal members of the congregation wanted men and women to pray together in the same room, while the more conservative members insisted that a wall be erected between the men and women's prayer spaces. Amaar, the imam, erected a wall that stretched halfway across the room, so the conservative-minded men could pray in front of it with the conservative-minded women behind it, while the liberal congregants would pray on the wall-less side of the room. Neither faction was pleased (but it was a typical ''Canadian'' solution).
* ''Series/BabylonFive''
** The [[SufficientlyAdvancedAlien Vorlons]] has a saying claiming "Understanding is a three-edged sword". Sheridan finally vocalizes the meaning behind it in season 4 when [[spoiler: he's telling off the Vorlons and the Shadows before kicking them out of the galaxy]]. Understanding has three sides: Your side, their side, and the truth.
** Brother Theo (a [[CaptainObvious Catholic monk]]) chastises Sheridan for having no clearly defined religious beliefs. Sheridan invokes this trope by saying he's "eclectic, open-minded." Brother Theo, who isn't buying it, says that Sheridan is "rudderless, adrift in a sea of ecclesiastical possibilities." Interestingly for this trope, but par for the course for B5, neither side is presented as being "right."
* ''Series/{{House}}'' presents most attempts at compromise as examples of this fallacy. In keeping with the series's position on the SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism, it seems that we are usually meant to agree with him. This is subverted in an important instance, though, when Stacy defies House's wishes and [[TakeAThirdOption takes a third option]] while he's in a coma following his infarction, saving his leg and probably his life as well.
* This was part of Jon Stewart's show-ending rant on ''Crossfire''. The show was infamous for bringing on people of supremely dichotomous views, whom the hosts would then egg on into an argument. The thinking was that the producers were presenting the views of the mainstream public on an issue by bringing on their loudest extremists, with the public view somewhere between them.
* In the ''Series/{{Community}}'' episode "[[Recap/CommunityS1E06FootballFeminismAndYou Football, Feminism and You]]" Jeff tries to invoke this to justify his selfish behavior involving Troy. Since part of this selfishness involved Jeff delivering a ''very'' nasty We're NotSoDifferent And It's TheReasonYouSuckSpeech to Annie that reduced her to tears, Annie immediately calls him on it.
* In ''YesPrimeMinister'', Sir Humphrey is trying (without much success) to find an argument against a plan for banning cigarette advertising and punitive taxes on tobacco. Eventually he's reduced to "The government should not take sides." Hacker spots the fallacy at once: "You mean, impartial as between the fire engine and the fire?"
* In ''Series/{{QI}}'', when Alan Davies talked about giving honey to bees that have been hurt in order to help them recover, Dara O'Briain responded that he would prefer to [[MercyKill just squash it]]. Rob Brydon followed up with his compromise plan - drown the bee in honey.
* In ''Series/TheOfficeUS'', this is Michael Scott's idea of a compromise. When Oscar protested that Angela's baby posters were offensive to him, his idea of a compromise was to have the poster made into a shirt Oscar would wear everyday so Angela could see it but Oscar couldn't. Do we even need a spoiler tag here to hide the fact that neither of them liked the idea? [[spoiler: No. No we don't.]]
* Discussed in the meta sense on ''Series/LastWeekTonightWithJohnOliver''. John points out that it's the habit of debates and news articles to give both sides equal representation on topics that are not equally represented in society--that is, despite the overwhelming majority of people being on one side of an issue, a debate will still insist on having one for and one against.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Newspaper Comics]]
* In one strip of ''ComicStrip/TheBoondocks'', George W. Bush says (paraphrased from memory), "On one hand, Colin Powell supports affirmative action. On the other hand, Condoleezza Rice favors the death penalty for anyone who teaches a black person to read. So I figure that keeping black people out of college is good enough." (You have to expect this sort of thing from the comic.)
* In one strip of ''ComicStrip/GetFuzzy'', Bucky built a robot designed to be the most moderate Presidential candidate ever, with [[MultipleChoicePast a hodgepodge of backgrounds]], friendly demeanor, and spouting quotes like "my father shared your job and/or ethnicity!" However, Rob breaks the robot when he asks it the first controversial issue he can think of, "Don't you need to raise taxes to pay for [[TheWarOnTerror the war]]?", causing it to explode from a LogicBomb.
* Ruthlessly mocked in a ''ComicStrip/{{Dilbert}}'' strip. Dilbert asks [[PointyHairedBoss his boss]] whether a project's budget should be $100,000 or $25,000. The Boss cited the wisdom of [[{{Malaproper}} "Wise King Salmon"]] by "splitting the difference" and giving him $50,000. Dilbert concludes: "Fish are stupid."
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Tabletop Games]]
* ''TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons'': The TrueNeutral alignment, which started out as people who are dedicated to maintaining balance, to the point that they'll switch sides in the middle of battle. Druids had this alignment the most. True Neutral changed to what Absolute Neutral (or just "Neutral") used to be: people with no strong convictions toward any side of good or evil and law or chaos. Creatures without intelligence and people with profound apathy would have this alignment. Fourth Edition calls this "Unaligned."
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Video Games]]
* In ''Franchise/TheElderScrolls'' series, The Redguards of Hammerfell have traditionally divided themselves into two sociopolitical groups: The Crowns, decended from Redguard nobility, hold Yokudan tradition in high regard and dislike foreigners, while the Forebears, descended from the warriors who conquered Hammerfell, are more comfortable with incorporating aspects of Breton and Imperial culture into their way of life. A third political movement, the Lhotunics, emerged after the Warp in the West, who espouse both the cosmopolitan values of the Forebears and the sense of tradition and respect for the past of the Crowns, and are generally held in contempt by both sides.
* ''Franchise/ShinMegamiTensei'': [[PlayingWithATrope Played with]]. The majority of games deal with the constant struggle between Law (God, selflessness, obedience, logic, observing social norms) versus Chaos (Lucifer, personal freedom, thinking for yourself, emotions, doing what you feel like). Both sides have their strong points, but both also can (and do) devolve into extremism when taken too far. While the overall impact of choosing either varies from [[TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt the fall and defilement of mankind]] to [[BittersweetEnding altering the ending's ratio of Bitter and Sweet]], neither is portrayed as overall positive. Far more often, the games present [[TakeAThirdOption Neutral]] (siding with [[HumansAreSpecial humanity]] and relying on context instead of principle to decide actions) as the best choice. That said, there are often more than three endings (usually featuring different flavors of Neutral), and even when there aren't, Neutral usually isn't so much The Perfect Solution as the [[LesserOfTwoEvils Lesser of Three Evils]]. HumansAreBastards, sure, but the [[GodAndSatanAreBothJerks alternatives are worse]].
* The portrayal of prosecutors and defense attorneys in the ''Franchise/AceAttorney'' series is this. Prosecutors such as Manfred von Karma or pre-CharacterDevelopment Miles Edgeworth are shown as being ruthless people who look down on the defendants as scum who are guilty until proven innocent and deserve to be locked up forever. Defense attorneys such as Robert Hammond and [[spoiler:Kristoph Gavin]] are selfish and don't truly believe in the innocence of their client, only interested in benefiting themselves. Meanwhile, attorneys like Mia Fey, Phoenix Wright, Gregory Edgeworth or prosecutors Klavier Gavin, Byrne Faraday, and post-CharacterDevelopment Miles Edgeworth are only interested in figuring out the truth, and are willing to make sacrifices and go the extra mile to find it out (in the case of Edgeworth and Klavier, this even means collaborating with their rival defense attorneys). The idea a case is "won" or "lost" doesn't matter when it's the truth and justice at stake.
* ''VideoGame/BioShockInfinite'' has gotten a lot of heat for portraying the Vox Populi, a band of revolutionaries fighting for racial and economic equality, as every bit as ruthless as the racist establishment they're fighting. But considering how completely ''Infinite'' is enmeshed in actual history, and given the wealth of RealLife examples of TheRevolutionWillNotBeCivilized, [[RealityIsUnrealistic this might simply be a case of art imitating life.]]
** It doesn't help that Booker & Elizabeth agree that the leader of the vox populi seems just as bad as Comstock before they've been given much reason at all to think that. Approximately, the only bad thing she's done at that point is hijack a blimp Booker & Elizabeth were on, take Elizabeth hostage, & dump Booker out of the blimp from high in the air so he could (against his will) do some stuff she wanted but that was to save the slaves & she wasn't the one who dumped him out so she might not have planned that. At this point, Comstock has burned a Native American tribe to death to prove something, enslaved black people, passed up a chance to have Booker definitely shot to death so he could burn him to death instead along with a huge group of his own followers, kept Elizabeth locked up alone for well over a decade while having people secretly spy on her at all times & keep creepy samples of stuff like her period blood, & lied to everyone about everything.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Webcomics]]
* ''Webcomic/BrunoTheBandit''. More about religion than politics, but the principle is the same. Atheists are pig-headed, verbally abusive, and so [[StrawVulcan fanatically devoted to "reason"]] that there is no amount of evidence that would convince them to change their minds, [[FlatEarthAtheist not even a god making an appearance right in front of their eyes]]. The church is dogmatic, inflexible, and more interested in [[CorruptChurch hoarding wealth to glorify itself]] than in practicing any of the charity it keeps preaching. Yes, thank heavens for the existence of liberal Catholi... ahem, ''[[CrystalDragonJesus Ailixism]]''! [[FailureIsTheOnlyOption Is anyone at all ever portrayed in a positive light in that webcomic?]]
* [[https://web.archive.org/web/20070830012050/http://idrewthis.org/d/20070815.html This comic strip]] offers a wry comment on the subject. It also unintentionally illustrates how the Golden Mean Fallacy is often weaponized by people who are too lazy or cowardly to debate their own ideas against anything other than a straw argument. Say, for example, if you can just get everyone think that [[{{Demonization}} "their" beliefs are inherently wrong and/or evil]] (like, say, [[DeliberatelyBadExample equating an opposing viewpoint to blending kittens]]), then the beliefs of one's own side come out smelling like a rose by default.
* ''Webcomic/{{xkcd}}''
** Parodied in [[http://xkcd.com/690/ this]] cartoon, in which it is suggested that 9/11 was both an inside job and a terrorist attack.
** And directly called out in [[http://xkcd.com/774/ this]] one.
** Crops up [[http://xkcd.com/1292/ again]] when pi is compared to tau.
* This is how politics works in ''Webcomic/SoreThumbs''.
* ''Webcomic/DinosaurComics'' Presents: [[http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=216 Logical Fallacy Comics]]
* Abe from Webcomic/ThinkinLincoln [[http://www.thinkin-lincoln.com/index.php?strip_id=112 tries to find some middle ground.]]
* ''JesusAndMo'' have reached [[http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/11/16/sober/ that precarious and profound middle ground between being extremely drunk and extremely sober]].
* In ''Webcomic/{{Sinfest}}'', Slicky [[http://www.sinfest.net/view.php?date=2011-04-27 tried an apple]] from the Tree of Knowledge and couldn't handle it. Slicky dived into Lethe and forgot everything. So he [[http://www.sinfest.net/view.php?date=2011-05-24 tried to combine them]] into "Forbidden Fruit and Lethe Water Power Drink".
--> '''Slick''': WTF?
* In ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'', Haley, Belkar and Celia are trying to get past a checkpoint controlled by hobgoblins. [[ComedicSociopathy Belkar]] wants to massacre all the checkpoint guards, but [[ActualPacifist Celia]] convinces Haley that it's better if they sneak through the checkpoint while keeping all the hobgoblins alive. Belkar decides to kill one of the hobgoblins anyway, then argues that killing one is a reasonable compromise between killing them all and sparing them.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Web Originals]]
* Parodied: No matter what the issue, JP Nickel gives you... ''[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ Both Sides!!!]]''[[note]]For those not wanting to Website/YouTube - the issue discussed is: Eyeglasses vs Stabbing Yourself With a Steak Knife.[[/note]]
* Discussed in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7hhT22seTY this]] Angry Aussie video, as an argument when discussing creationists' arguments against evolution.
* Parodied in a ''Scientific American'' [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=okay-we-give-up April Fool's joke]]:
-->''Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts.''
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Western Animation]]
* ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'' does this a lot. Admittedly, it might be mostly because they live in such a CrapsackWorld that any idea, plan or policy is almost by definition horrendously flawed, but the writers still want to offer some kind of uplifting moral at the end of the episode.
** See [[Quotes/GoldenMeanFallacy the quotes page]] from "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS8E1TreehouseOfHorrorVII Treehouse of Horror VII]]" in which Kang and Kodos run for president disguised as UsefulNotes/BillClinton and Bob Dole.
** The episode where Lisa goes vegetarian tries to pull this at the last minute.
** {{Lampshade|Hanging}}d in the episode in which Homer gets his jaw wired shut. In the middle of a long story about the old days, Grandpa says: "...after that, things got pretty quiet until FDR challenged Superman to a race around the world. FDR beat him by a furlong, or so the stories say. The truth lies somewhere in between..."
** And then there's the debacle with the children of Springfield trying to figure out why all the adults had disappeared from the streets after Grampa started selling his aphrodisiac:
--> '''Millhouse:''' Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people under the supervision of the reverse vampires are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner.
* ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'' uses this trope a lot to deliver its message. [[StrawCharacter Strawman Politicals]] from both sides clash and make the problem worse, until someone delivers a final speech concluding that neither side is correct. For example, we shouldn't support the Boy Scouts' decision to exclude membership to gays, but we also shouldn't ban the organization because they should be free to exclude people in their own company. Sometimes, the solutions have been highly unconvincing compromises presented as perfect for everyone, giving rise to complaints that the makers try to force the trope. Through the show's many seasons, however, they have lampshaded and subverted the common formula a number of times:
** The episode on gay marriage, for example, parodied this trope by having a politician offer a "compromise" solution in which gay people could get all the legal benefits of marriage, but instead of using traditionally straights-only terms like "marriage," "married," and "husband and wife," they would be called [[DoesThisRemindYouOfAnything "butt buddies"]]. Much like in RealLife, no one was particularly pleased.
** In the NAMBLA episode they have the head of NAMBLA try and pull this, which Stan and Kyle shoot down immediately.
--> Kyle: Dude. You have sex with children.
--> Stan: Yeah. You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you.
--> Kyle: Seriously.
* ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'' made fun of this at the end of one episode, where Bender states the moral he learned:
-->"I'll never be too good or too evil ever again, I'll just be me."
-->"Do you think you could be a ''little'' less evil?"
-->"I don't know, Leela. Do you think you could survive a 600-foot fall?"
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Real Life]]
* Some people consider this a problem with modern journalism: to appear "objective", many reporters and commentators will interview both sides of an issue and avoid as much as possible indicating that one side is demonstrably in error.
** Okrent's Law: The quest for balance creates imbalance because sometimes things are true.
** Joe Klein of Time, for a while, had a consistent reputation for [[StrawCharacter painting both sides as dangerous extremes]], most notably when he regarded liberal Democrats opposed to warrantless wiretapping to be just as out of touch with the American base as the right was on the Terri Schiavo right to die issue. Plus a cover story he wrote called "Ascendancy of the Center", with perhaps the most {{Anvilicious}} yet banal cover image in print history: a Venn diagram made of two circles, [[ColourCodedForYourConvenience the right one red, and the left one blue, with the center represented by the overlap violet.]]
** Some modern day reporters avert the trope by being blatantly biased.
** A major issue concerning news coverage of climate change. The scientific consensus that man-made climate change is occuring is roughly 97% among climate scientists and scientific publications (with the remaining 3% generally using poor or biased methodology), but news coverage, in the interests of "objectivity", gives climate denialists equal showtime, giving the impression that scientists are polarized on the issue when they're actually not. The BBC has more recently recognized this fallacy and [[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/07/3456782/bbc-cuts-climate-deniers/ is making efforts to stop giving airtime to climate deniers.]]
* In Livy's writings, the Samnites manage to trap a Roman army in a narrow pass, but since the relations between the two people was tense, but not yet at war, their commander vacillated about what to do. One of his advisors said he should let them go, and try to win friends with the Roman people. Another one said that they should wipe out this army and try their best to crush Rome while it was reeling from the blow. He eventually settles on humiliating the Roman army, accepting surrender and token tribute from them, and then letting them go home. The result? The Romans get pissed, but are still at more or less full strength, and come back with a vengeance, stomping him hard.
** That same man may also have been the ancestor of Pontius Pilate, who might be the most famous (attempted) user of this trope in history.
* Congressman John Tanner (D-TN) on his fellow Blue Dog Democrats: "We're too liberal in our home areas and too conservative in Washington. ''I mean, we get it on both sides, and which means I think we're doing something right.''"
* One of the theories about the Treaty of Versailles that ended UsefulNotes/WorldWarOne was that it was compromised by this principle. The treaty was harsh enough to upset the Germans but not harsh enough to stop them from retaliating.
* This can be a problem in wikis ([[RunningGag just like the one you're reading!]]) - two opposed people get in an EditWar, and the only ways to appease them both are (a) come up with something halfway between the two, or (b) have the article [[Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage contradict itself]].
** Or you could [[TakeAThirdOption delete everything they both wrote and make someone else write the article]].
*** [[SelfDemonstratingArticle I propose a compromise of just deleting and re-writing half the article, while leaving the other half as a demonstration of the controversy.]]
***** [[OverlyLongGag I suggest that we, rather than determine the reader's conclusions or let them choose their own, merely influence them, and allow part of the critical rebuttal here, but not all of it.]]
* This can be exploited for marketing purposes with what is known as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_pricing#Goldilocks_pricing Goldilocks pricing]]. Suppose you have two products, Product A is the basic version which gives just the essentials for a low price, and Product B has all the bells and whistles but is more expensive. Many people will see this and decide that A does all they need, and so there is no point in paying extra for B. On the other hand, bring out Product C which is slightly better than Product B but with another price hike, and suddenly B becomes much more tempting, as it offers most of what you get from C but at a lower price. The classic example of this is Economy, Business, and First Class seating on airlines.
** The general subversion with this is when there's not enough difference between the three, causing one of them to eventually drop away. A good example would be the end of Third Class and Second Class rail services in the UK (technically "Standard Class" is Third Class, as it was the second class that was legally abolished in the 1910s).
* Averted by Aristotle, even though he is often looked to as the source of the fallacy. Though he does argue that each virtue is a mean between two extremes, he remarks that it would be stupid to infer that therefore we should seek moderation in all things
* The idea that teachers should deal with school bullies by staying neutral is an example. Many schools treat bullying as though it were a mutual conflict where both students are equally wrong, rather than one student abusing another. Of course, without evidence, even if it seems clear one kid most likely started it, teachers are usually expected not to be biased towards either party, especially once parents get involved. It leads to kids not reporting that they're being bullied, because they figure they'll only get punished as well.
** The general principle is usually expressed, as probably everyone has heard, "It takes two people to start a fight/argument". Approximately 90% of the time someone says this, it's because they don't want to go to the trouble of finding out if one of those two people was right. Or it's because they can't figure out that it actually only takes 1 person to start a fight, it just takes 2 people to make it a fair fight rather than [[NoHoldsBarredBeatdown a merciless beat-down]].
*** They also try punishing both people equally sometimes. e.g., Kid A hits Kid B, Kid B shoves him away, brawl ensues. 99% chance kid B is punished just as bad even when they see it was self-defense.
* The Compromise of 1850 in the United States was an attempt at this, as it 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. 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 events surrounding the "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas Border War]]", intended to be a compromise between pro- and antislavery settlers when Kansas became a state, wound up killing many.
** Generally, U.S. politics immediately prior to the Civil War revolved around this trope. Most presidents of the 1850s struggled desperately to find some way the free states and slave states could peacefully coexist with each other, which required seeing the pro-slavery and anti-slavery positions as being of equal value. Even worse, this kind of thinking tended to default in favor of the South, since someone caring only about peace would see anti-slavery people stirring the pot and pro-slavery people in favor of maintaining the status quo.
*** This in particular was what led to conflict between Andrew Johnson and the Radical-Republican led Congress. This would eventually lead to his impeachment.
* This is apparently how Stalin won debates before he became undisputed ruler of the Soviet Union. He would ask for the two opposing sides of an issue, then say he belonged to a sensible middle, undermining both rivals.
* Whenever Canadian policymakers refer to a "uniquely Canadian" or "made in Canada" solution to a problem (which they do [[InsistentTerminology all the freaking time]]), it essentially means somewhere between a U.S. and EU approach, even if one approach or the other might very well be preferable.
* Sales. You think it's worth $30, they say it's worth $100, but it's [[note]]perpetually[[/note]] on sale for $60! That's less than the mean. Given the proliferation of this tactic, it seems to work.
** At least in the US, the ''same'' item cannot stay perpetually on sale usually due to legislation aimed at protecting consumers from this sort of practice. LoopHoleAbuse kicks in when the store rotates a few models which are virtually indistinguishable to the consumer. Imagine three nearly identical $500 USD snowblowers, one with an "Ice-Cracker Blade," one with an "EZ Pull Starter," and one with "Power Traction Mode." One is always on sale, and they're both next to the $250 USD No Frills model and the $800 USD Deluxe model. That's how this trope is used, in conjunction with the Goldilocks pricing strategy mentioned above.
** Of course, the same item can sell at roughly the same price almost all the time if the store simply "changes" the sale. Many department and big-box stores will offer an additional 10-20 percent off the sale price (40%) if you shop with the store's card (because they make a huge profit off of your debt). The next week, the same item is on sale for 50 percent off with no additional discount. Both deals sound good, but which is better?[[note]]To determine the final price when taking "an extra ___ percent off," you can't add percentages. "Extra 15 percent + 40 percent sale" does not equal 55%. Rather, an item selling at 100 USD - 40% = 60 dollars; 15% off of 60 USD = 51, for a grand total of 49% off. The price of the item differs by one dollar. This becomes substantially more difficult to do mentally, of course, if the item is, say, 17.49, but it's not impossible; however, stores are depending on your not checking the week-to-week math during a sale.[[/note]]
** Then there's the matter of MSRP, which is invariably set unreasonably high, so that a $30 MSRP product (that is really worth only $10) looks like a steal when it's "marked down" to $20.
* Historian Gaddis Smith observed that during the Cold War, when strategists were called upon to provide the president with a list of options for a crisis situation, they'd usually provide five options. Option #1 would be "capitulate", option #5 would be "nuclear war". The strategist's actual proposal would be option #3.
** The KGB did something similar with their intelligence predictions, formulating three predictions: Best Case, Middle Case, Worst Case. The Middle Case was always the one presented, supplemented with data from the Best and Worse cases.
* During the Constitutional Convention, two of the compromises were essentially this. First was the Great Compromise, which took the Virginia Plan (allocate votes based on population) and the New Jersey Plan (each state gets the same number of votes) and put them together. No one really thought that was a good idea, but since the issue had become a deadlock, they accepted it and today it is seen as a [[TropesAreNotBad perfectly reasonable way of doing things]]. The second compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise (slaves count as three-fifths of a person), was a more literal application of this trope and is often considered the founder's [[MyGreatestFailure greatest failure]]. [[MustMakeAmends It has since been redacted by the Thirteenth Amendment]].
* UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan's "evil empire" speech argued that anyone who saw the United States and Soviet Union as moral equals was using this fallacy: "I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." Notably, when re-election time came along, his tone became much more conciliatory, suggesting that swing voters at least, weren't quite so certain of the dichotomy.
** Around the same time, Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, made much the same argument in an essay called "The Myth of Moral Equivalence".
* As mentioned in the quote CNN has been accused of taking this trope and running with it.
* Lots of countries, such as England, America, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. have a proverb that is some variation of, "If two people quarrel, both are wrong." Many readers of this page might recognize the more familiar, "It takes two to tango." Sometimes this proverb makes sense (a lot of times, to be fair), but other times, one person has clearly done something unethical or irrational (a police officer who arrests the wrong man for a murder, for example, or a child who throws a softball through someone else's window and breaks it); if you claim both parties are wrong in ''those'' cases, then even if you're arguing for something in the middle you are actually punishing the one person who ''didn't'' tango, by making it wrong for him/her to protest in addition to the pain already inflicted on him/her. Of course, be careful when arguing that particular point, since ''usually'' the proverb about quarreling is correct.
* One of the principles in UsefulNotes/{{Buddhism}} is the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way Middle Way]], which is a principle that one should always take the path between the two extremes. Of course, they apply it to more esoteric things than most examples here, but one example was the middle between self-indulgence and asceticism.
* Satirized by none other than the great Groucho Marx, who was visiting an exclusive beach resort. When he inquired about buying a membership, he was informed that the property was "No Semites Allowed." To which the Jewish comedian replied: "My son is only half Jewish, does that mean he gets to wade in halfway?"
* Because of two vocal factions reacting to the Boy Scouts Of America's ban on gay members, the group proposed to allow gay youth but not gay leaders. One side wants no gay members; the other points out that gay children grow up.
* Arguments about minority rights tend to attract really misguided supporters of this philosophy. For example the idea that the Golden Mean for gay rights is to allow some rights for gay couples but not equal to straight couples. The problem is how it sets the field up: These people see "no gay rights at all" and "equality" as the two extremes when equality IS the middle ground. The real other extreme would be to demand privileges to gay couples or to take rights away from straight couples. The reason people get away with ignoring this is that, being a minority, there's no real danger in gay supremacists (who are a tiny minority OF a minority) ever getting that much power in any community larger than a small village and even then only if they painstakingly build and maintained a gay majority. So most people don't even think it a possible opinion to have. This tends to go for all minorities but gay people are a good example since, aside from some strange unforeseen change to human biology, homosexuality will always remain at a stable 2-6% of the population and has no chance to become a majority or even equal in size to the straight population. Also most gay people have straight families. So the balance of opinion is really badly skewed in all ways. And of course the whole golden mean thing is a fallacy anyway (and there are definitely more arguments in favour of equality than just "because it's the middle ground") but the point is that it's not even getting the premises right.
** However, given that as of 2014 homosexual activity was punishable by death in countries such as Yemen, Brunei, and Saudi Arabia, one realizes that no matter how extreme a position is, someone will likely [[PoesLaw earnestly hold a position even more radical]].
** As the Three-Fifths compromise and then segregation showed, the Golden Mean Fallacy's deficiencies are cruelly exposed whenever it is applied to a question of rights, because once something is defined as a "right", it permits no compromise.
* This sometimes happens with agnostics who claim to hold a better position than atheists and theists alike because it is a middle ground. The question of God's existence is either yes or no, so a middle ground makes no sense. However, it's not the Golden Mean Fallacy to think there is not enough evidence to be conclusive either way.
** Creator/DouglasAdams (who was atheist) brought this up when friends suggested he be agnostic "just in case" he's wrong about God's existence. Adams disagreed with this way of thinking, saying that if there is a God, He would probably have more respect for someone who had made a decision and stood by it, rather than trying to have it both ways.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Other]]
* Wiki/RationalWiki covers this under [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy Balance fallacy]].
* Website/{{Fark}} "independents" (read: Republicans) use the fallacy so much, it has its own initialism: BSABSVR. (Both Sides Are Bad, So Vote Republican.)
[[/folder]]

!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't:
* Supporting a middle position based on its own merit rather than simply because it's in the middle.
----