False Dichotomy + Tautology
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
"Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Many leaders have said similar things throughout history. It's a classic example of a black-or-white fallacy, or false dichotomy.
But imagine a situation where the person who says it is a terrorist himself. He's very clever and secretive, and most of his subjects don't realize that he's the one who's stirring up trouble and launching terrorist attacks.
I would argue that this is still a false dichotomy, because the leader is asking his citizens to choose between two sides, even if the two sides have been falsely packaged.
But suppose citizens aren't fooled; they know their king is the leader of the terrorists himself. So he's literally giving his citizens no options but support him. What would you call this fallacy?
Comments on Question
Answers
2That's the citizens' problem. It is still a false dichotomy. "
But suppose citizens aren't fooled; they know their king is the leader of the terrorists himself. So he's literally giving his citizens no options but supports him. What would you call this fallacy?"
In most cases of the generic and common "you are either with us or against us" we are talking about a false dilemma (dichotomy) and equivocation . The equivocation is in regards to what it means to be "with" someone. There are situations where being with X necessarily means being against Y, as is supporting one of the playing teams in the Superbowl. But is most situations being "with" X doesn't mean one must be "against" Y. Consider the most common example of a social cause. Support for a social cause is on a continuum. People use this the "with or against" trope to manipulate one into blind loyalty, or at least a level of support that is unwarranted.
One could also refrain from supporting X or Y, remaining neutral. Perhaps one doesn't have enough information to give their support to X or Y or just supports the idea but doesn't do anything actively. But what if it is claimed that not actively supporting X is supporting Y by default? Does this mean if you are not with X you are with Y? Not necessarily. Consider a situation where a kid is being bullied. You witness it, but say or do nothing. Can we conclude that you support bullying (i.e., you are with bullying and against anti-bullying)? No. There could be many reasons you don't interfere (some good, some not good) that have nothing to do with you supporting bullying. Here is where equivocation comes in again. Perhaps the anti-bullying folks will say that in that situation, you were "against" them because of your inaction given that you could have done something but chose not to. This line of reason leads to absurdity, because we can say that they are then "against" (name any cause here—say preventing child rape) because they can easily donate to child rape prevention charities but choose not to.
The "with or against us" trope is a fallacy, and often just manipulative rhetoric.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Outright false representation of the true false dichotomy. Also even then still being a false dichotomy, it gives weight to the absurdity of the leader being the cause of the terrorist acts. Seemingly nihilistic actions confound the situation and it seems to follow as an intentionally subversive act. Subversive false dichotomy might be a better name for it.