I don't think slippery slopes are productive to constructive discourse at all, and are merely used as a rhetorical device with the goal of invoking Ethos or Pat

I don't think slippery slopes are productive to constructive discourse at all, and are merely used as a rhetorical device with the goal of invoking Ethos or Pathos to certain demographics. Aka, "virtue signalling". The "this policy/rule/law (moral or legal) could be applied in a way that I don't like" argument is a tired, boring, uninteresting, and fearful one. It is tautologically true of any policy/rule/law. Better is putting forth an actual argument for an alternative policy/rule/law, whether it's merely a small clarification or a complete systemic overhaul, turning that fear into a constructive argument with actual participation in the matters at hand. Less fear and signaling, more activism and constructive dialogue without divisive rhetoric. Edit: if instead the intent of the arguer is to refine something someone else said, just ask! Going back to your example, the (no-longer) sabatuer asking pointedly "Do you think all people deserve empathy, only LGBT (as opposed to flurries and goths), or something else?" is way more productive to directly ask than perform a slippery slope dance. The argument can then be provided without reservation since everyone is being genuine and clear. It might be compelling, it might not. Either way, it'll get made. Rhetoric matters to discourse quality.