A false dichotomy is assuming that two objects or ideas are essentially antonyms or mean the exact opposite of one another when this isn’t the case. Example: “you are either with me or you are against me.” Depending on the circumstances, there’s no reason for that to be logically the case. I should certainly be able to be neutral, at least theoretically. But by setting up the choice that way it creates a false dichotomy based on an incorrect assumption, which must either be corrected or the argument finished because it doesn’t any longer have any practical application.
A true dichotomy would be the fact that the earth is made of two more or less equal hemispheres, the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. They are different inasmuch as their existence depends on them being different. This is “true” without having to give the matter much thought. And boring. There’s a northern hemisphere and a southern one. Yawn.
This is the reason that we almost never hear about true dichotomies and we almost always hear about false dichotomies: false dichotomies are controversial because they attempt to make a false equivalence, usually in comparing things that are not appropriate to compare. Many voters in the U.S. created a false dichotomy based on a false equivalence leading up to the election by saying that a vote for either would, at best, elect the lesser of two evils. And we all know how that’s going.
Creating false dichotomies is intervening in the way language likes to behave. Language exists to be clear and understood. Running around lying about stuff that doesn’t make sense, while accomplishing much of the agenda behind it, shoots itself in the foot by debilitating anybody’s ability to appear trustworthy and well-intentioned.
Hope this helps
