If you believe that the passage in question is a false dichotomy then you either do not understand what a dichotomy is or you parsed the quoted text incorrectly. The two ends of the spectrum are mutually exclusive (and look somewhat extreme) but for them to be dichotomous the entire rest of the spectrum—all the moderate parts—must be excluded.
Even if the text is somehow wrong or stupid it is not a false dichotomy.
EDIT: I really don’t understand the issue. In order to apply excluded middle to reach the conclusion, they have to both hold that the two ends of the spectrum are dichotomous, and that the rest of the spectrum either doesn’t exist, or is inconsequential. So it’s a spectrum in a name only, which as far as I can see is as good as a false dichotomy.
That is one of many things you could say that isn’t just strictly and trivially false.
But it isn’t my preferences you are satisfying. I don’t mind if you say wrong things, I’m just going to reply with a correction if you do. (So ‘rather?’ is a strange question!)
While they do sometimes treat this as two ends of a spectrum, their ultimate conclusion
Relies on the earlier (perhaps unstated, or implicitly stated) premise that 1) and 2) are mutually exclusive.
If you believe that the passage in question is a false dichotomy then you either do not understand what a dichotomy is or you parsed the quoted text incorrectly. The two ends of the spectrum are mutually exclusive (and look somewhat extreme) but for them to be dichotomous the entire rest of the spectrum—all the moderate parts—must be excluded.
Even if the text is somehow wrong or stupid it is not a false dichotomy.
Would you rather I called it a fake spectrum?
EDIT: I really don’t understand the issue. In order to apply excluded middle to reach the conclusion, they have to both hold that the two ends of the spectrum are dichotomous, and that the rest of the spectrum either doesn’t exist, or is inconsequential. So it’s a spectrum in a name only, which as far as I can see is as good as a false dichotomy.
That is one of many things you could say that isn’t just strictly and trivially false.
But it isn’t my preferences you are satisfying. I don’t mind if you say wrong things, I’m just going to reply with a correction if you do. (So ‘rather?’ is a strange question!)
Let me rephrase, then. “Is there anything you would correct in characterizing the aforementioned as a fake spectrum?”
Honestly, if I have to write so strictly, it’s almost too much effort.
I thought the answer ‘no’ would have come across, even while I distanced myself from the personal connotations.