[Off Guardian via ZERO] was talking to a very close friend the other day who happens to be a die-hard Trump hater (I know what you are thinking, don’t ask). We unfortunately drifted into a "discussion" about the January 6 fiasco (and also don’t ask me why I bother). Time and time again, I run into this sort of thing—where the position on the left believes they are 100% right about any particular controversial topic.
No matter how much contradicting (to their position) information I provide, they dismiss it all as garbage. "It is obvious what it is, and that’s that." As with most things these days, I find this odd.
Nothing is 100% a particular way, with zero valid argument in the other direction. Nothing except very simple things. I am, of course, describing the infamous "false binary" or "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma."
This is nothing new, of course. The idea of the false binary has been kicking around human thought since the days when philosophers in togas were debating the nature of reality. It’s a logical fallacy that’s as old as logic itself, with roots stretching back to ancient Greece.
Aristotle, that granddaddy of Western philosophy, touched on similar ideas in his works on rhetoric and ethics, warning against oversimplifying complex arguments into rigid either-or choices that ignore the messy nuances of life. He didn’t call it a "false dichotomy" per se—that term came later—but he was essentially calling out the same intellectual laziness in his critiques of sophistry, where debaters would trap opponents in contrived binaries to win points rather than seek truth.
Fast-forward a few centuries, and the concept gets more formalized during the Enlightenment, when thinkers like John Locke and David Hume started dissecting human reasoning and its pitfalls. But it really crystallized in the 19th and 20th centuries with the rise of formal logic and fallacy studies. Logicians like John Stuart Mill in his System of Logic (1843) highlighted how people often frame debates as black-or-white to manipulate outcomes, excluding middle grounds or alternative possibilities.
By the mid-20th century, it was a staple in critical thinking texts—consider Irving Copi’s Introduction to Logic in the 1950s, which cataloged it as a classic informal fallacy. In essence, a false dichotomy presents a situation as if there are only two mutually exclusive options, when in reality, there’s a spectrum, or third (or fourth, or fifth) paths lurking in the shadows. It’s like saying, "You’re either with us or against us," as if loyalty is a switch that can’t be dimmed or rewired. This trick forces people into polarized corners, shutting down dialogue and making compromise seem like betrayal.
In our modern madhouse, it’s weaponized everywhere—from politics, where elections are pitched as apocalyptic battles between good and evil, to the Covid era’s "vax or die" mantra that erased any talk of natural immunity or alternative treatments. It’s a mind trap that preys on our tribal instincts, making us feel secure in our righteousness while blinding us to the gray areas where real understanding lives. And that’s the shrew’s (contrarian thinkers) edge: spotting these illusions before they hook us.
Then there’s the tribal pull. Humans are pack animals, and nothing bonds a group faster than a common enemy. “Us vs. Them” isn’t just a narrative trick—it’s evolutionary. Back in the savanna days, you didn’t survive by pondering the moral ambiguity of the rival tribe; you picked your side and swung the club. Today, that instinct gets hijacked by algorithms and talking heads, but the wiring’s the same. Admitting your team might be wrong feels like betrayal, so people double down, even when the facts are screaming otherwise.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
11/06/2025 8:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
good points Besoeker
The quantitative aspect of truth was long undervalued, as was the dynamic nature of truth (e.g., now it is day but in a few hours we say 'now it is night')
but I think Aristotle's major contribution was in establishing the usefulness of typologies. As in 'traffic law penalties' are one thing with it's own set of assumptions, practice and procedures; 'illegal business practices' are another, etc.
Sometimes when I'm speaking with leftists I ask their opinion of why certain things happened, e.g., why did the Soviet Union fail to produce good consumer goods, why did Islamic Socialism in Pakistan result in egregious corruption. Or else I engage them in a discussion of why Hegal had such a crazy theory of history.
All to avoid their blah blah blah about Trump.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
11/06/2025 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Critical thinking is very difficult these days. people derive "facts" from a source. these "facts" are then shared within a mostly sympathetic pier group, or echo chamber ie education. the problem is pick your source, which you can now, to reinforce "truth". then it gets weaponized, we dont even know who weaponizes it. My favorite analogy, when i grew up there were 3 tv channels +PBS and they all said the same the same thing, the whole country watched the same cartoons, adults all watched the same news and favorite sitcoms. there was cohesion, regardless of the message. all had the same source. this allowed for overall non-divisive debate for a "common good". good luck with that today
A unique trait of the human species is that our personalities, lifestyles, and worldviews are shaped by an accident of birth―namely, the culture into which we are born. It is our cultures and not our genes that determine which foods we eat, which languages we speak, which people we love and marry, and which people we kill in war.
#6
nice add Skid, our culture is young and week, inherited from Christian Europe and passed down fairly well until recently. our culture is based on our foundational ideas and the belief that all people want them, sans 2000 year old monuments or the history that goes with them, our own people, religion or language. without the bedrock principles, ideas are maleable. America never said give up your own traditions, it said to be American you must shed the bad traditions and ideas, embrace the good and work to reinforce and protect them. That is why immigrations was historically "regulated" through moratoriums.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
11/06/2025 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What a bizarre reaction. Where did anyone get the idea that we were supposed to have sympathy for them?
I smell the distinct stench of the antisemite.
They deserved brutal executions!
So did all the Nazi scum.
[NYPOST] The voters spoke Tuesday night, and rather than reject Democrat extremism, they embraced it emphatically.
In New Jersey and Virginia, two fake moderates — high-test resume female candidates practically built in a lab by the party establishment, who nonetheless hold to extreme leftist views on social policy — cruised to victory, in line with polls and the expectations of the political elite.
None of the outcomes were surprises, except perhaps one — the Virginia Attorney General race, where Jay Jones, the bloody-minded partisan who was exposed for openly fantasizing about murdering a Republican political opponent and hoping his children died in their mother's arms, won handily.
Jones' victory is a vindication of the pro-assassination faction of the radical left.
It turns out you can celebrate your opponents' deaths, and muse about how great it would be if their children died, too, without any repercussions.
It might even help you prove your bona fides.
You're a true leftist now, Jay Jones.
The Commonwealth is a long distance from the great Doug Wilder and the old Virginia Way.
Every four years, the off-year elections in Virginia and New Jersey have outsized importance in the minds of the national political class.
Lacking any other data points, they seize on the results in these states as indicators of the national mood.
But the truth is, more often than not, these off-year elections are independent variables, dependent on local battles and priorities, and motivated by backlash against whoever occupies the White House.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1787 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just remember their mantra 'power by any means'.
#2
Prediction 2028 : USS-NYC tax revenues fall and Debt grows, as historically seen and documented Socialist agendas, drive out the Big 100 and other large employing companies.
Companies which then relocated their HQ's to more commercial friendly locations.
OBTW: Which could be other than the USA.
(Switzerland?)
#3
Hungary has a corporate tax rate of 9%, just sayin' (plus their banks are pretty secretive).
If you're self-employed, the Czech Republic isn't bad either. You can get your tax rates down to single digits with some legal finagling.
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and the Netherlands follow closely behind.
Singapore would be my choice right now, however.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
11/06/2025 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The off year elections, especially the ones the year after a Presidential election have generally low turnout.
The Dems have created a powerful 'get out the vote' machine powered by tens of thousands of 'civic engagement' people funded by NGOs that are nominally non political, but objectively leftist, e.g., the Ford Foundation. They thus have an enormous advantage in low turnout elections. The Virginia elections are a case in point. Each of the Republican statewide candidates got substantially more votes than their predecessor in 2021 but the Dems got about 2 to 3 times that increase.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
11/06/2025 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Netherlands is no longer a good place to be Jewish, among other categories.
#9
minority party wins when minority party is shutting down the govern? these midterms mattered. if the country brakes 50/50 nationally, those 50% see things going a bad way, should never be "low voter turnout". unless they are programmed to expect certain outcomes in certain states so why bother, why bother indeed. CA is mine, NY is mine, i will not acquiesce because "they get what they vote for". our adversaries use our systems against us. that is the nature of a free democracy and it is an Americanism to protect it or it will be lost. T - 38mo's
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
