5 ms·

Why do you hate slippery slope arguments? They tend to be right. It’s why we have the saying - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Edit: rather tha

Why do you hate slippery slope arguments? They tend to be right. It’s why we have the saying - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Edit: rather than “tend to be right”, I should have said can be right given the right argument and evidence.

umvi 5y ago
The problem is that one man's hell is another man's paradise. Gun-free America, strong covid public health policies, "hate speech", device surveillance, etc ... you name the slippery slope and you'll find at the bottom of the slope that it's hell for some people and paradise for others. Some people prefer highly authoritarian governments that manage (and minimize) life risk and others prefer hands off governments with self-managed risk.
- coding123 5y ago
  The GOOD news is that there is no One World Government, so people are able to buy their transfer to another country to better fit their definition of paradise.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    The BAD news is that there are so many government options that it will be hard to find a country that will fit you perfectly and some countries tend to overreach their borders very far so that you cannot escape their tyranny even if you move. The WORSE news is that even if they're able to find a country that fits them better, they still need to invest a lot of money and time to move (if they get in at all) and leave their family, friends and home behind. Seriously, moving to a different country is hardly an option. In nearly all cases, fighting to keep your country good is your best bet.
    - collaborative 5y ago
      Some people are born in societies that overwhelmingly hold opposite views to their own. In these cases, escaping outweighs staying since they have no chance of seeing them change during their lifetimes
      - Sebb767 5y ago
        I specifically didn't say it's never an option - if you don't have anything to hold you back or if your country is no longer livable, escaping might be your only option. My point is, this is more of a very last resort rather than something you just do.
  - _jal 5y ago
    For the vast bulk of people, you may as well suggest they move to a different planet. The even worse problem with this line of thought is the econ-101 conclusion - that they must be OK with things if they don't demonstrate otherwise by voting with their feet. (Not ascribing that assertion to the parent.)
    - tobmlt 5y ago
      Yep. You’ve found one of the true purposes of immigration law. As with barriers to free competition among employers in the market for employees acting to suppress wages to benefit companies, so with nation states in their control of citizens immigration allowing for higher repression and exploitation of various forms.
      - randompwd 5y ago
        As a native English speaker, I'm having a lot of trouble parsing your comment.
      - vkou 5y ago
        This is an interesting theory, but it falls apart upon contact with reality. The vastly overwhelming majority of immigration barriers in the world keep people out of other countries, not keep people in them. The motivation behind those barriers is, broadly speaking, in keeping out moochers and undesirables, not "Actively helping some country on the other side of the world repress its citizenry." You'll be hard-pressed to find people who support strict immigration controls for the latter reason. You don't have to look hard to find supporters of them for the former reason.
        tobmlt 5y ago
        You don’t think both reasons have been important? How about the eastern block during the Cold War? I bet my rulers in the USA are happy that the EU makes it difficult for our people to move there. On the other hand I am certain our populace mostly thinks about keeping “the other out” sure. Cannot both things hold on their own time and place, and depending on where the person holding the view sits? Mexico’s ruling class is likely glad for our immigration law, as it keeps their populace pinned in. Economic issues always cut two ways, and the press will stoke emotion about only one of the two, for some reason.
  - kook_throwaway 5y ago
    We might not have a world government on paper, but governments around the world tend to be largely on the same page. Those that aren't following the lead of the world hegemony have an unfortunate tendency to get invaded, have uprisings of dubious origins, or other inconveniences like assassination[1]. Considering how long that list is, I don't think it's unfair to assume there's many more subtle instances where foreign governments decided to cooperate that we don't even know about. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
- sunshineforever 5y ago
  Authoritarianism doesn't only swing in the liberal direction. Until the last generation most authoritarian policies were of the conservative sort. And with regards to this specific debate, being tough on crime and (largely unnecessary conspiracy level) fear over pedophilia are both conservative darlings. The 2nd amendment has typically been the only love of conservatives. Where were they when the police illegally searched us in dozens of ways, or when free speech was limited to easy to ignore "free speech zones"? They've only clamoured to defend free speech once the right to freely abuse weaker social classes was at risk of being taken away.
  - gotoeleven 5y ago
    What's at risk of being taken away is the right of weaker groups to abuse stronger ones, at least to some degree. Stronger ones always have and always will abuse weaker ones. It's pretty much a tautology. Freedom of speech and classical liberalism in general is the only defense the weak have.
- anthk 5y ago
  You can choose gun control, universal healthcare and fight device surveillance. You know, that's called... Europe.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Europe's privacy protections only seem to apply to what companies can do. Their governments seem to be perfectly happy with your privacy being invaded as long as they're the ones doing it.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Democratic governments doing sucks, because they shouldn't. In the cade of a democracy we still have elections as a way to change policy. Im case of companies based in other countries there is not even that, there is basically nothing I can do, as a EU citizen, to prevent companies from spying at me. Not even voting. I can refuse using that companies hardware or services, which is hard enough with the likes of FANG or MS.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      This is absolutely not true. The privacy protections in Europe apply to companies and governments alike, to the great chagrin of our police forces and the intelligence services.
    - anthk 5y ago
      False. Not even the goverment can snoop on comms unless a judge orders it.

umvi 5y ago

The problem is that one man's hell is another man's paradise. Gun-free America, strong covid public health policies, "hate speech", device surveillance, etc ... you name the slippery slope and you'll find at the bottom of the slope that it's hell for some people and paradise for others. Some people prefer highly authoritarian governments that manage (and minimize) life risk and others prefer hands off governments with self-managed risk.

coding123 5y ago
The GOOD news is that there is no One World Government, so people are able to buy their transfer to another country to better fit their definition of paradise.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  The BAD news is that there are so many government options that it will be hard to find a country that will fit you perfectly and some countries tend to overreach their borders very far so that you cannot escape their tyranny even if you move. The WORSE news is that even if they're able to find a country that fits them better, they still need to invest a lot of money and time to move (if they get in at all) and leave their family, friends and home behind. Seriously, moving to a different country is hardly an option. In nearly all cases, fighting to keep your country good is your best bet.
  - collaborative 5y ago
    Some people are born in societies that overwhelmingly hold opposite views to their own. In these cases, escaping outweighs staying since they have no chance of seeing them change during their lifetimes
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      I specifically didn't say it's never an option - if you don't have anything to hold you back or if your country is no longer livable, escaping might be your only option. My point is, this is more of a very last resort rather than something you just do.
- _jal 5y ago
  For the vast bulk of people, you may as well suggest they move to a different planet. The even worse problem with this line of thought is the econ-101 conclusion - that they must be OK with things if they don't demonstrate otherwise by voting with their feet. (Not ascribing that assertion to the parent.)
  - tobmlt 5y ago
    Yep. You’ve found one of the true purposes of immigration law. As with barriers to free competition among employers in the market for employees acting to suppress wages to benefit companies, so with nation states in their control of citizens immigration allowing for higher repression and exploitation of various forms.
    - randompwd 5y ago
      As a native English speaker, I'm having a lot of trouble parsing your comment.
    - vkou 5y ago
      This is an interesting theory, but it falls apart upon contact with reality. The vastly overwhelming majority of immigration barriers in the world keep people out of other countries, not keep people in them. The motivation behind those barriers is, broadly speaking, in keeping out moochers and undesirables, not "Actively helping some country on the other side of the world repress its citizenry." You'll be hard-pressed to find people who support strict immigration controls for the latter reason. You don't have to look hard to find supporters of them for the former reason.
      - tobmlt 5y ago
        You don’t think both reasons have been important? How about the eastern block during the Cold War? I bet my rulers in the USA are happy that the EU makes it difficult for our people to move there. On the other hand I am certain our populace mostly thinks about keeping “the other out” sure. Cannot both things hold on their own time and place, and depending on where the person holding the view sits? Mexico’s ruling class is likely glad for our immigration law, as it keeps their populace pinned in. Economic issues always cut two ways, and the press will stoke emotion about only one of the two, for some reason.
- kook_throwaway 5y ago
  We might not have a world government on paper, but governments around the world tend to be largely on the same page. Those that aren't following the lead of the world hegemony have an unfortunate tendency to get invaded, have uprisings of dubious origins, or other inconveniences like assassination[1]. Considering how long that list is, I don't think it's unfair to assume there's many more subtle instances where foreign governments decided to cooperate that we don't even know about. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
sunshineforever 5y ago
Authoritarianism doesn't only swing in the liberal direction. Until the last generation most authoritarian policies were of the conservative sort. And with regards to this specific debate, being tough on crime and (largely unnecessary conspiracy level) fear over pedophilia are both conservative darlings. The 2nd amendment has typically been the only love of conservatives. Where were they when the police illegally searched us in dozens of ways, or when free speech was limited to easy to ignore "free speech zones"? They've only clamoured to defend free speech once the right to freely abuse weaker social classes was at risk of being taken away.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  What's at risk of being taken away is the right of weaker groups to abuse stronger ones, at least to some degree. Stronger ones always have and always will abuse weaker ones. It's pretty much a tautology. Freedom of speech and classical liberalism in general is the only defense the weak have.
anthk 5y ago
You can choose gun control, universal healthcare and fight device surveillance. You know, that's called... Europe.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Europe's privacy protections only seem to apply to what companies can do. Their governments seem to be perfectly happy with your privacy being invaded as long as they're the ones doing it.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Democratic governments doing sucks, because they shouldn't. In the cade of a democracy we still have elections as a way to change policy. Im case of companies based in other countries there is not even that, there is basically nothing I can do, as a EU citizen, to prevent companies from spying at me. Not even voting. I can refuse using that companies hardware or services, which is hard enough with the likes of FANG or MS.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    This is absolutely not true. The privacy protections in Europe apply to companies and governments alike, to the great chagrin of our police forces and the intelligence services.
  - anthk 5y ago
    False. Not even the goverment can snoop on comms unless a judge orders it.