3 ms·
Well as a fellow techy who respects logical arguments, I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with your main point. OTOH, outside in the real world
by hiram112 6y ago
Well as a fellow techy who respects logical arguments, I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with your main point.
OTOH, outside in the real world i.e. Twitter and Reddit (haha), this rationale is not what was being used to attack dissenters and anyone who dared question the official standard line. Anyone who pointed out a very relevant example of a "colloquial" slippery slope- especially if it was something that was labeled as a conspiracy that we'd never allow happen or to get that far - e.g. vaccine passports, full time remote learning, restricted travel and forced government quarantines at inflated costs, fining small businesses for having one customer while Costco and Walmart are packed to capacity, etc. 6 months ago and was now occuring or being openly considered - was attacked by the mob who maliciously or mistakenly were peddling the "slippery slope argument has been debunked, just like the Earth is not flat - you are banned for 48 hours" to shut down debate.
- syops 6y agoI think how arguments are framed matter. It’s one thing to say, “If A happens then this means scary scenario B will happen.” And another to say, “If A happens then we need to be vigilant that B doesn’t result as a consequence.” The problem as I see it is that debate on policy does not revolve on how best to achieve an outcome. It typically revolves on the mistaken belief that if change comes then either it will be glorious or have dire consequences. In the healthcare debate rational people should want everyone to have access to the healthcare system. So how best to go about achieving that? That should be the focus.