"False Dichotomy: This is where you say that there are only two choices, when actually there are more. For instance, you might say that someone is either alive, or they're dead, ignoring the fact that they might be Dracula. Or you might say that if someone's not a Democrat, they must be some sort of Republican, ignoring the very real possibility that they may be Dracula."
A false dichotomynote ("Die-cot-uh-me/Dai-cot-ah-mi"), also known as either/or reasoning, is when just two options are presented for something when there are actually (many) others. Moreover, the two options presented are rigged to favour one answer. There are two ways of doing this:
Classic. One choice is an unacceptable extreme, the presenter hopes the target will commit to the not-unacceptable-extreme option: "Kill the children, or buy their cookies."
Polarization. Both choices are unacceptable extremes, the presenter hopes the target will commit to the less-unacceptable option: "Kill the children with their own cookies, or only kill half of them."
Reality is rarely so simple, unforgiving or rigged. Instead of an artificial binary choice favouring an ideology, life offers a diverse landscape of choices and consequences.
This binary approach is also a common media trope. Simply put: it is a lot easier for an audience to understand a story where characters are villains or heroes. In the simpler romances, it is more straightforward if characters exhibit a transcendent love, or an excoriating hate. Contrast Golden Mean Fallacy. Necessary for someone to be able to Take a Third Option (though, of course, doing that instantly subverts this trope by revealing the falsity of the dichotomy.) Compare and contrast the Semantic Slippery Slope Fallacy.
The simplest form of this is to make the choices "A" or "Not A". In this case, "Not A" encompasses everything that isn't "A", even if that category is massive. For example, "You're either a Conservative, or not a Conservative," does include all possibilities, even though "Not a Conservative" includes liberals, libertarians, anarchists, or any other political philosophy that isn't simply conservatism by another name.
The act of presenting two options makes there become just two options. Normally "With Us or Against Us" is a false dichotomy, but a leader can declare that all non-allies are their enemies. Such a declaration is performativenote i.e., if I declare you my enemy, you are my enemy so it's not fallacious and thus isn't a false dichotomy, even if the reasoning that leads someone to say it is. It's rarely a good idea under most circumstances, however.
There really are only two options, even though there's a third (semi-)option that comes from combining (bits of) the other two. This is usually due to a linguistic quirk of English whereby both the Inclusive Or (A or B or both) and Exclusive Or (A or B but never both, often abbreviated xor) are both just 'or'. E.g. the statement "Everyone reading this page is brown-skinned or a Troper" is true for an Inclusive Or, but not for an Exclusive Or. Naturally, most statements like that are misleading in general speech. See the trope Mathematician's Answer.
open/close all folders
During the initial promotion for Civil War, Marvel released a pair of message board signature images reading either "I'm with Captain America" or "I'm with Iron Man". Within days, fans were creating their own versions by the dozens, the most popular being: "You're all fucked when the Hulk gets back" or THOU ART NO THOR!
A Few Good Men: Colonel Jessup, after having been accused of killing one of his own men (admittedly by accident): "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post." (You are either at war or not a soldier, used against a Military Lawyer)
The "Battle of Wits" from The Princess Bride presents this. The Man in Black puts two goblets between them and asks, "Where is the poison?" Vizzini goes through dozens of justifications and possibilities for why one would poison either one, trying to stall for time. Either way, he never considers that they were both poisoned. Vizzini pulled the fallacy on himself, since the Man in Black never said that only one of the goblets was poisoned.
Donnie: Well, life isn't that simple. I mean, who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
Kitty Farmer: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
Donnie: Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
Layla from Sky High, asked to demonstrate her powers, claims that the hero/sidekick dichotomy is a false one, but is cut off by Boomer declaring her a sidekick.
Anakin: If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy!
Obi-Wan: Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
A lot of people then pointed out that Obi-Wan's above statement... is itself very absolute. The usually level-headed Obi-Wan is inexplicably claiming that anyone who deals with an absolute view on anything must be a Sith. Besides being idiotic, it also is ironic when you consider that everything the Jedi Order does is absolute. The rules against marriage, attachment, etc. are all iron-clad, one-size-fits-all rules, that one can be expelled from the Order for not toeing the line on. In essence, he's calling himself a Sith. Wasn't thatthe point?
There's a standard joke about someone moving to Northern Ireland and being asked by the locals if they're Protestant or Catholic: when they explain that they are in fact atheist/Buddhist/Muslim/other, the locals respond "Yes, but are you a Protestant or a Catholic atheist/Buddhist/Muslim/other?"
Similar joke: an atheist is asked but is asked to clarify "...is it the Protestant God or that Catholic God you don't believe in?"
A Sherlock Holmessequel-by-other-hands has Holmes called upon to judge which of two violins is the one Davy Crockett played at the Alamo. He quickly identifies one as a fake, but realises that he was intended to; the owner wanted him to declare a violin as genuine, and so was presenting him with the false dichotomy of "which one's the fake?" They both are.
Bella believes she must either be with Edward or with Jacob. She also believes she must either become a vampire or grow old. Later, she believes that she must either wait until her belly is full-sized to deliver, or abort it, because no life-threatening pregnancy was ever solved by putting the babies on life-support to save the life of the mother. Bella thinks only in absolutes throughout the series. Another example would be when Edward leaves her in the second book. To her, her only options are being happy with Edward, or being miserable without him. Being happy without Edward never once occurs to her, no matter how often it's suggested to her.
"George W. Bush: Great President, or The Greatest President?"
He also divides the supermarket into cheese and non-cheese. Assuming that he classifies everything with cheese in it as cheese, it's a real dichotomy… but not a particularly important one. What about cottage cheese and other borderline dairy products?
Parks and Recreation: Leslie tried to drum up public support for building a park by phrasing the question, "Wouldn't you rather have a park than a storage facility for nuclear waste?"
Revolution: In "The Dark Tower", Nora Clayton gets shot in the gut by a coil gun and is bleeding out. Rachel Matheson tries to convince Team Matheson to just leave her behind and turn the power back, and Nora herself even urges them to leave her. However, Charlie Matheson intervenes and flat out states that this is not an either-or situation and that they can both turn the power back and get Nora to an infirmary. So, Aaron Pittman and Rachel go on to get the power back on, and Charlie and Miles Matheson go on to get Nora to an infirmary.
RPG game Paranoia: if you aren't a fanatic supporter of the oppressive totalitarian regime, a loyal servant of The Computer, you are a death-dealing commie mutant traitor. This one is notable because everyone in Paranoia is a commie mutant traitor at heart, so instead of there being more than two possibilities, it turns out there's only one. Well, some of the commie mutant traitors do love the Computer.
Many, many debates about alignment in the D&D game have arisen because of assuming every possible action must be either "Good" or "Evil", while overlooking the existence of "Neutral" as an alternative. This frequently comes up for the paladin class, because the phrasing of their code of honor implies that even tolerating any act of evil or chaos can cost them all their class features.
Part of a trick played on Kyousuke in G-Senjou no Maou, which is especially amusing because he just saw it pulled on his idiot friend. The trick pulled on his friend was the question "Which river is the longest in the world? A. the Amazon B. the Yangtze C. the Edo?"note He picked the Edo river. Like noted, he's an idiot. while it was never stated that it was actually a multiple choice question, and thus the answer is the Nile. The trick played on Kyousuke comes immediately after, where he gets asked, "Will you go on a date with Mizuha at a classical concert or somewhere else?" and he accidentally picks option one before realizing that 'don't go on a date at all' was also a valid choice, but is too proud to back down now.
"Pix plz" was parodied by Chainsawsuit. Note how the jerk distills Black Hat down to "Stalking girls" or "White Knighting". So if anyone calls someone online out on their misogyny, they're only doing it to get into girls' pants and/or out of some need to defend their honor. The actual content of the criticism is to be brushed aside in favor of allegations about the critic. To be fair to Straub, this is inherent in any accusation of "white knighting".
The above actually strawmans a parody. Asking an intruder into one's own home how he identified the individual is a valid question and criticism. It does not generalize to all online discussions or even all accusations of misogyny. Black Hat may have been able to come up with a third option. But he couldn't have come up with a good option. Then again, Black Hat is not a "good" person, even in canon. Also, in the example comment, the content was not dismissed (it was actually accepted as true.) It's only that Black Hat's actions are no less problematic.
In Edition Wars: Invaders from the Fourth Dimension, a story in The Order of the Stick book Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales, the Fourth Editionversion of Haley is able to knock out Durkon by stabbing him in the foot, because nowhere in the rules does it say that she can't knock him out by stabbing him in the foot.
4E Elan: Then that means you used— 4E Haley: Yes. I used the power of abandoned verisimilitude! 4E Elan: Anything is possible when you don't care about what's actually possible!
Called out in the Fantasy theme of Irregular Webcomic!: When one of the Player Characters asks the DM "Would you rather have campaign progress or character development?" the DM promptly replies "It is not a dichotomy!" In the accompanying rant, it is commented, "Of course not. In a dichotomy, you do get one of the options."
Extremely common in a Flame War. In fact you can test this yourself; go to any wikia based site and bring up a commonly held but non-verifiable belief, you won't have to wait long to see this kind of argument show up.
The Love It or Hate It trope. There is a group of middle-of-the-road viewers/readers/players, but they are generally ignored. (However, the reason it's a trope in the first place is because that middle-of-the-road group is far smaller than for most fandoms.)
A popular joke on YouTube is to comment on a video by reciting the number of "dislike" ratings the video has at the time of commenting and accusing all of them of something; common examples include "[X] people missed the 'like' button," "[X] people had no childhood," "[X] people are Justin Bieber fans," or some kind of threat. Such comments tend to be found in the highest rated comments, but luckily, subversions and parodies are replacing them in that spot (a common version referencing something in the video or relevant to it).
Khan: From Laos, stupid! It's a landlocked country in South-East Asia between Vietnam and Thailand, population approximately 4.7 million!
Hank: (long pause) So are you Chinese or Japanese?
In Dragons: Riders of Berk, Hiccup must choose between beating Snotlout at The Thawfest Games or letting Snotlout win, with it being shown that if Snotlout doesn't win, he's in for hell from his father (of breaking the family streak) to the point of Snotlout outright panicking when he thinks it'll happen. It's never brought up that maybe Snotlout's dad is taking this too seriously, shouldn't have his love for his son based on a game, or anything of the sort. It also doesn't help that Snotlout is an obnoxious winner, not even realizing that Hiccup threw the race for him, when part of Hiccup's dilemma was if he was just winning to be a jerk (he Took a Level in Jerkass so they could wonder that, too) instead of helping out a friend.
In the American Dad! episode "Son of Stan, pt. 2", Stan and Francine argue over whether the proper way to raise Steve is to be totally strict, or totally permissive.
The 1967 cartoon The Bear That Wasn't (based on the book of the same name) has a bear told by factory managers that he's not a bear but a silly man in a fur coat that needs a shave. They tell him this over and over, but the clincher comes when the factory's president is brought in. The president takes the bear to the zoo and explains that bears belong in the zoo. Since the bear was not in the zoo, he could not be a bear. The bears in the zoo even agree, saying that a real bear would be in the zoo with the other bears!
The "debate" between religion and science is itself an example. Putting aside the fact that religion isn't even a single thing, it isn't actually at war with science. The whole concept is outright bizarre when you consider how many famous historical scientists were priests (and a good number of modern ones), the papal bulls protecting free inquiry, the funding of science, the many historic universities with religious founders, and the fact that the Vatican itself has a science department (the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), along with several labs. Even if the Theory of Evolution were disproven, Creationism would not automatically take its place. These aren't even mutually exclusive as species may be created but still evolve over time, otherwise known as Theistic Evolution
"America - Love It Or Leave It" is a popular false dilemma in the USA, though it's not exactly unique to them. The dilemma suggests that a true patriot must embrace everything ever done by America, or becomeun-American. However, since America as a nation was founded on the concept of respectful political dissent, one must doubt the premise of this false dilemma very seriously.
To say nothing of that this fallacy can easily be turned back on those who use it, i.e. declaring that nobody who truly loves America would allow it not to fix its current problems, thus implying that those who use the fallacy don't really love America (in a mature way) by thinking it's perfect and can do no wrong, that is, enabling it.
"Homophobia" vs LGBTQ support. Either you support gay marriage because you're gay yourself, or you're against it because you hate gay people. There's quite a good deal of in-between groups that rarely get heard from, such as "unionists" who believe gay marriage is wrong, but should not be banned because marriage is an intrinsic right, or straight people who have no problem with gay marriage, and some gay people don't want gay marriage because they consider the institution historically flawed or because they would rather take political action against issues like LGBTQ youth homelessness and find the marriage issue insignificant.
Conspiracy theorists frequently commit this. Either you accept that their conspiracy is true, or you're a mindless sheep who believes whatever the establishment says. Obviously, it's impossible for one to believe the establishment lies sometimes, but they happened to be telling the truth this one particular time.
Even this is a false dichotomy, as some of the most outlandish conspiracy theories (such as reptoids secretly controlling the earth via the Illuminati) can be rejected by someone who believes the establishment is always lying.
Political Correctness vs Unfortunate Implications. Implies that anyone who criticizes PC thought must be a racist/sexist/homophobic/bigot of some form, and conversely implies that anyone who is ever offended by anything or tries to raise a discussion about whether something is offensive is an overly sensitive PC person trying to censor everybody.
Abused by anti-vaccine advocates. Either vaccines are completely safe or they are too dangerous to use. Cost-benefit analysis is rarely used. Ignoring medical cost-benefit analysis is often abused in more sensationalist media coverage. For example, hysterical news articles about how Ritalin (or many other drugs, usually psychiatric ones) may be damaging the patients prescribed it in some vague, undefined way, or pointing out some of the nastier potential side effects, and calling for its use to be stopped on that basis... while ignoring that for at least some patients, these short term side effects or potential long term risks do not outweigh the benefits of the drug for them.
Left wing politics vs. right wing politics.
"The world is better off without some people" vs. "Killing is always wrong."