3 ms·

> A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relativ

> A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. With all due respect, innocent people are dying because certain individuals incite violence against them. It's easy to express you support free speech when you are not on the receiving end and don't need to deal with insane people who think you are the devil-manifest. Would you be okay if your friends or family died in a shooting from an individual who consumed a particular class of content? Reality is that nothing is done in a vacuum, every action matters, every discussion matters, everything we utter matters.

uLogMicheal 3y ago
> The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This does not fall into the fallacy aspect as it is already happening, groups are already being exploited for ulterior motives to control thought. Part of having a background in security research leads one to detect vulnerabilities. This is a gaping vulnerability. > With all due respect, innocent people are dying because certain individuals incite violence against them. Let us be clear that inciting violence is criminal and not considered protected speech. > Would you be okay if your friends or family died in a shooting from an individual who consumed a particular class of content? Less people are dying today than have historically died from hateful conduct. You cannot crush hate out of a society with censorship. Driving hateful behavior underground only emboldens the extremists. Only through education and the ability for an individual to observe how consensus genuinely rejects their hate can you change such attitudes. You also cannot defeat an assumed logical fallacy with a different one, you are appealing to extremes when you take into account statistics and history.
- gradExMachina 3y ago
  > This does not fall into the fallacy aspect as it is already happening, groups are already being exploited for ulterior motives to control thought. Part of having a background in security research leads one to detect vulnerabilities. This is a gaping vulnerability. Part of being a minority is being afraid to walk in the streets because you don't know what kind of media a random person has been consuming [1]. Examples like [1] are many and will only become more frequent as some people succumb to hate and others exploit them. > Let us be clear that inciting violence is criminal and not considered protected speech. Of course it is, but why won't anyone think of the children, wink wink, nudge nudge. If only there was some hero to save us all from those monsters! That line of speech is frequent in certain circles and a certain class has been hearing this on repeat for a few years now. > Less people are dying today than have historically died from hateful conduct. You cannot crush hate out of a society with censorship. I am not keen on crushing anyone, I am keen on continuing living. Being visibly trans in a backwards country with crazy people is terrifying. I do not recommend. > Driving hateful behavior underground only emboldens the extremists. Only through education and the ability for an individual to observe how consensus genuinely rejects their hate can you change such attitudes. What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop? > you are appealing to extremes when you take into account statistics and history. The funny thing when you think about statistics is that those events that people conveniently aggregate to cutesy little numbers are happening to real people with real friends and families, with their own dreams and aspirations. For you I am just a statistic, a tiny minority that you can look from afar. But for me, it's my life. [1] https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/23/woman-86-beaten-wheelie-bin-trans/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/23/woman-86-beaten-wheel...
  - uLogMicheal 3y ago
    How do you separate those cases from these cases? https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guilty-next-steps/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil... A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda? > What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop? Is algorithmic and incentivized actor driven censorship considered consensus? From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality. Censorship driven echo chambers support some opinions while they crush others. In some respects, we need more confrontation of opinion in society. Too few are forced to question themselves in current times, emboldened by these digital echo chambers, opinion solidified in thoughts and actions. I genuinely hope that we can find a way to end this age of artificial division. Too many agendas being programmed into brains, too little reality driven truth.

uLogMicheal 3y ago

> The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This does not fall into the fallacy aspect as it is already happening, groups are already being exploited for ulterior motives to control thought. Part of having a background in security research leads one to detect vulnerabilities. This is a gaping vulnerability. > With all due respect, innocent people are dying because certain individuals incite violence against them. Let us be clear that inciting violence is criminal and not considered protected speech. > Would you be okay if your friends or family died in a shooting from an individual who consumed a particular class of content? Less people are dying today than have historically died from hateful conduct. You cannot crush hate out of a society with censorship. Driving hateful behavior underground only emboldens the extremists. Only through education and the ability for an individual to observe how consensus genuinely rejects their hate can you change such attitudes. You also cannot defeat an assumed logical fallacy with a different one, you are appealing to extremes when you take into account statistics and history.

gradExMachina 3y ago
> This does not fall into the fallacy aspect as it is already happening, groups are already being exploited for ulterior motives to control thought. Part of having a background in security research leads one to detect vulnerabilities. This is a gaping vulnerability. Part of being a minority is being afraid to walk in the streets because you don't know what kind of media a random person has been consuming [1]. Examples like [1] are many and will only become more frequent as some people succumb to hate and others exploit them. > Let us be clear that inciting violence is criminal and not considered protected speech. Of course it is, but why won't anyone think of the children, wink wink, nudge nudge. If only there was some hero to save us all from those monsters! That line of speech is frequent in certain circles and a certain class has been hearing this on repeat for a few years now. > Less people are dying today than have historically died from hateful conduct. You cannot crush hate out of a society with censorship. I am not keen on crushing anyone, I am keen on continuing living. Being visibly trans in a backwards country with crazy people is terrifying. I do not recommend. > Driving hateful behavior underground only emboldens the extremists. Only through education and the ability for an individual to observe how consensus genuinely rejects their hate can you change such attitudes. What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop? > you are appealing to extremes when you take into account statistics and history. The funny thing when you think about statistics is that those events that people conveniently aggregate to cutesy little numbers are happening to real people with real friends and families, with their own dreams and aspirations. For you I am just a statistic, a tiny minority that you can look from afar. But for me, it's my life. [1] https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/23/woman-86-beaten-wheelie-bin-trans/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/23/woman-86-beaten-wheel...
- uLogMicheal 3y ago
  How do you separate those cases from these cases? https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guilty-next-steps/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil... A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda? > What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop? Is algorithmic and incentivized actor driven censorship considered consensus? From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality. Censorship driven echo chambers support some opinions while they crush others. In some respects, we need more confrontation of opinion in society. Too few are forced to question themselves in current times, emboldened by these digital echo chambers, opinion solidified in thoughts and actions. I genuinely hope that we can find a way to end this age of artificial division. Too many agendas being programmed into brains, too little reality driven truth.