Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / FalseDichotomy

Go To



* 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution Theistic Evolution]]

to:

* 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 UsefulNotes/{{Evolution}} were disproven, Young-Earth 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution 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 [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red-baiting become]] [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Terrorism-baiting un-American]]. However, since America as a nation was founded on the concept of political dissent, one must doubt the premise of this false dilemma very seriously.

to:

* "America - Love It Or Leave It" is a popular false dilemma in the USA, UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates, though it's not exactly unique to them. The dilemma suggests that a true patriot must embrace everything ever done by America, or [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red-baiting become]] [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Terrorism-baiting un-American]].become un-American. However, since America as a nation was founded on the concept of political dissent, one must doubt the premise of this false dilemma very seriously.



** Any country where the men can choose between the army and civilian service. Either you are a real man by going to the army, or a wuss, a traitor and [[UnfortunateImplications possibly gay]] if you go with the latter.[[note]][[SarcasmMode Because all gay men run away in fear if guns are present]][[/note]] Many of those who choose the latter do it not because of fear, but because of personal reasons, such as pacifism or serious issues with social situations[[note]]For example, an [[UsefulNotes/AspergersSyndrome Aspie]], who gets nervous at the mere thought of constant social interaction would know they can't take it for long, and thus find the idea of having their own space when not working superior[[/note]], and would be perfectly willing to defend their country if required. ([[UnfortunateImplications So, since no-one ever complains about most Women not going to the army, are they traitors]], or [[StayInTheKitchen are they considered too weak to defend the country by default?]])

to:

** Any country where the men can choose between the army and civilian service. Either you are a real man by going to the army, or a wuss, a traitor and [[UnfortunateImplications possibly gay]] if you go with the latter.[[note]][[SarcasmMode Because all gay men run away in fear if guns are present]][[/note]] Many of those who choose the latter do it not because of fear, but because of personal reasons, such as pacifism or serious issues with social situations[[note]]For example, an [[UsefulNotes/AspergersSyndrome Aspie]], who gets nervous at the mere thought of constant social interaction would know they can't take it for long, and thus find the idea of having their own space when not working superior[[/note]], and would be perfectly willing to defend their country if required. ([[UnfortunateImplications So, since no-one ever complains about most Women women not going to the army, are they traitors]], or [[StayInTheKitchen are they considered [[StayInTheKitchen too weak to defend the country by default?]])default]]?)



** The ACA is actually between the two extremes, setting up exchanges in which consumers can shop around for plans from different companies, regulations and subsidies intended to make the private-sector insurance industry more equitable, along with a mandate for insurance coverage to ensure that there are no free riders who don't contribute to the system. Ironically, it was originally proposed by the conservative Heritage Institute as a counter-proposal when Bill Clinton had proposed universal health care in the early 1990s.

to:

** The ACA is actually between the two extremes, setting up exchanges in which consumers can shop around for plans from different companies, regulations and subsidies intended to make the private-sector insurance industry more equitable, along with a mandate for insurance coverage to ensure that there are no free riders who don't contribute to the system. Ironically, it was originally proposed by the conservative Heritage Institute as a counter-proposal when Bill Clinton UsefulNotes/BillClinton had proposed universal health care in the early 1990s.



* It is said[[note]]According to Wiki/TheOtherWiki, the sources all date to at least 500 years after the event, so the account may be unreliable[[/note]] that the Library of Alexandria was burned down by 'Amr ibn al-'As on the basis that if the scrolls were in agreement with the Quran, they were superfluous, whereas if they opposed it they were blasphemous. This of course ignored the vastly more likely possibility that they had no connection to it at all.

to:

* It is said[[note]]According to Wiki/TheOtherWiki, the sources all date to at least 500 years after the event, so the account may be unreliable[[/note]] that the Library of Alexandria was burned down by 'Amr ibn al-'As on the basis that if the scrolls were in agreement with the Quran, Literature/TheQuran, they were superfluous, whereas if they opposed it they were blasphemous. This of course ignored the vastly more likely possibility that they had no connection to it at all.


* Anti-free speech advocates often use the philosophy that you can't support someone's right to say something unless you're agreeing with what they say.

to:

* Anti-free speech advocates often use the philosophy that you can't support someone's right When it comes to say something unless people expressing extreme (even violent) philosophies, you're agreeing with what they say.either fine with, or even support, the terrible beliefs they're advocating, or you want to censor them because you hate freedom of speech. Except that it's possible to support the right for people to say things you personally disagree with.

Added DiffLines:

* Anti-free speech advocates often use the philosophy that you can't support someone's right to say something unless you're agreeing with what they say.

Added DiffLines:

** There's also the broader dichotomy that by being LGBTQ, you must also be a liberal and support liberal causes. This is of course ignoring the fact that one's sexual orientation does not affect their views on things such as the economy or military spending. In one example, the idea of being a gay Republican in the United States is often seen as joke material, but there is a significant number of people within the Republican party who are also gay. The organization [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans Log Cabin Republicans]] has been representing this membership since the late 1970's, and has even been the subject of a documentary, ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Republicans_(film) Gay Republicans]]''.


* There really are only two options.
** 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. More simply, if a cafeteria only serves tea or coffee and you ask for a drink, "tea or coffee?" is not presenting a false dilemma.

to:

* There really are only two options.
**
options. If a cafeteria only serves tea or coffee and you ask for a drink, "tea or coffee?" is not presenting a false dilemma.
*
The simplest form of this is to make the choices are "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. More simply, if a cafeteria only serves tea or coffee and you ask for a drink, "tea or coffee?" is not presenting a false dilemma.

Added DiffLines:

** A common claim from conspiracy theorists is always along the lines of "You're trying to destroy my theory? You must be one of them!", ignoring the fact that maybe people who have no personal stake in the argument find it completely insane.


* The LoveItOrHateIt 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.)


* TheEnemyOfMyEnemyIsMyFriend: This invokes the false dilemma that you and your "friend" must be on the same side, simply because there is something else that you both oppose.

to:

* TheEnemyOfMyEnemyIsMyFriend: This invokes the false dilemma that you and your "friend" must be on the same side, simply because there is something else that you both oppose.oppose the same thing.


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 ''[[BlackAndWhiteMorality or]]'' heroes.[[note]]This even extends to troping behavior; TheHero or TheVillain are ''not'' obligatory tropes in a story, but many morally complex characters still [[ShoehornedExample get shoehorned into these roles]].[[/note]] In the simpler romances, it is more straightforward if characters exhibit a transcendent love, or an excoriating hate. Contrast GoldenMeanFallacy. Necessary for someone to be able to TakeAThirdOption (though, of course, doing that instantly subverts this trope by revealing the falsity of the dichotomy). A SadisticChoice is similar, except ''all'' of the given options are horrible. Compare and contrast the SemanticSlipperySlopeFallacy.

to:

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 ''[[BlackAndWhiteMorality or]]'' heroes.[[note]]This even extends to troping behavior; TheHero or TheVillain and the BigBad are ''not'' obligatory tropes in a story, but many morally complex characters still [[ShoehornedExample get shoehorned into these roles]].[[/note]] In the simpler romances, it is more straightforward if characters exhibit a transcendent love, or an excoriating hate. Contrast GoldenMeanFallacy. Necessary for someone to be able to TakeAThirdOption (though, of course, doing that instantly subverts this trope by revealing the falsity of the dichotomy). A SadisticChoice is similar, except ''all'' of the given options are horrible. Compare and contrast the SemanticSlipperySlopeFallacy.


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.[[note]]This even extends to troping behavior; TheHero or TheVillain are ''not'' obligatory tropes in a story, but many morally complex characters still [[ShoehornedExample get shoehorned into these roles]].[[/note]] In the simpler romances, it is more straightforward if characters exhibit a transcendent love, or an excoriating hate. Contrast GoldenMeanFallacy. Necessary for someone to be able to TakeAThirdOption (though, of course, doing that instantly subverts this trope by revealing the falsity of the dichotomy). A SadisticChoice is similar, except ''all'' of the given options are horrible. Compare and contrast the SemanticSlipperySlopeFallacy.

to:

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'' ''[[BlackAndWhiteMorality or]]'' heroes.[[note]]This even extends to troping behavior; TheHero or TheVillain are ''not'' obligatory tropes in a story, but many morally complex characters still [[ShoehornedExample get shoehorned into these roles]].[[/note]] In the simpler romances, it is more straightforward if characters exhibit a transcendent love, or an excoriating hate. Contrast GoldenMeanFallacy. Necessary for someone to be able to TakeAThirdOption (though, of course, doing that instantly subverts this trope by revealing the falsity of the dichotomy). A SadisticChoice is similar, except ''all'' of the given options are horrible. Compare and contrast the SemanticSlipperySlopeFallacy.

Added DiffLines:

The inverse is called '''Denying the Correlative''', wherein someone attempts to TakeAThirdOption where there ''is'' no third option. For example, being asked a yes or no question and answering "maybe."


A more subtle form is to argue that a statement of support for one thing means the opponent opposes another thing which is ''seen to be'' an opposed position, but which is not actually mutually exclusive with it at all:

to:

A more subtle form is to argue that a statement of support for one thing means the opponent speaker opposes another thing which is ''seen to be'' an opposed position, but which is not actually mutually exclusive with it at all:


-->''Alice:''' I like cats.\\

to:

-->''Alice:''' -->'''Alice:''' I like cats.\\

Added DiffLines:

A more subtle form is to argue that a statement of support for one thing means the opponent opposes another thing which is ''seen to be'' an opposed position, but which is not actually mutually exclusive with it at all:

-->''Alice:''' I like cats.\\
'''Bob:''' Why do you hate dogs?


* The concept of False Consciousness can involve this. While the idea is supposed to refer anyone who pretends to believe an ideology but has an ulterior motive, some people assume that anyone who doesn't share their worldview must be have one by default.

to:

* The concept of False Consciousness can involve this. While the idea is supposed to refer anyone who pretends to believe an ideology ideology, but has an ulterior motive, motive; some people assume that anyone who doesn't share their worldview must be have one one, or are being deceived by someone who does, by default.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 202

Top