So, the Strawman by False Dichotomy combines two logical fallacies into a single attack, like a combination punch from a boxer.

Basically, it means falsely attributing a position to your opponent based on an implied false dichotomy.  If among two choices, you don't accept choice B, that means you must choose A and therefore you approve of A.

Examples:

If you protest Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza, then you're "Pro Hamas".

During the election cycle, because I was critical of the one candidate, a poster who had been thus manipulated by this dialected alleged that hαɾɾιs was "my candidate".  If you don't support Trump, then (due to the false dichotomy) it must mean that you support hαɾɾιs (the false strawman accusation).

If you think that corporations should be mandated to pay a living wage to all their employees, then you're a Communist.

If you don't support Trump, then you're a Leftist.

In practice, they also tend to reinforce these by constant repetition, sometimes referred to as the Argumentum ad Nauseam fallacy or Argumentum ad Infinitum.  So, for instance, on the news cycle, you'll see them simply referrring to anti-Israel protests casually as "Pro Hamas" protests, where they very subtly reinforce this strawman by false dichotomy by repetition and linguistic programming.

While a separate matter from the fallacy cited here, they do this constantly, say, by using the term "conspiracy theory" in various usually-negative and often-ridiculous contexts in order to attach connotations to the term, thereby weaponizing it.  Or during COVID, the word was "baseless", and then "trust the science" (implying in another false dichotomy that those who opposed the jab were anti-scientific, and thereby also begging the question and using argument from authority).  They also program terms like "Lefebvrist" (where you're not just Catholic but somehow in some cult named after a person) or also "Feeneyite" ... or before then "nαzι" or "Fascist".  While this isn't a fallacy per se, it's still a powerful weapon for deception, sometimes referred to as neurolinguistic programming, where you pump various terms full of connotations so that when you merely apply it to someone in a sentence, or as an adjective, the negative connotations that come with the word immediately attach themselves in most listerners' mind to the person it was applied to, without any proof that it truly applies to the individual or that the term is even intrinsically illegitimate or negative ... but that immediately puts your opponent at a disadvantage that he has to dig himself out of before the main point of substance can be debated.  I can't tell you how many times during a purely theological argument, someone attacked me for being a "Flat Earther", hoping thereby to color the theological argument that they were losing badly, in an attempt to distract people from the validity (or lack thereof) of the points being made.