I'm still always surprised when people say "slippery slope" in earnest, as though it isn't a well-known logical fallacy to be avoided. As though, at no point along the slope, would we be able to reverse course. "This thing must necessarily lead to that thing over time!"

Okay Nostradamus.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 1 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

It's only a fallacy when there is not evidence given that each step leads to the next. A slippery slope argument is perfectly valid when evidence is provided.The fallacy is in the implicit and unexamined assumption that a must lead to b.

E.g

Taking heroin once is obviously a slippery slope to becoming a heroin addict because taking it once causes you to crave taking it again.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago* (last edited 32 minutes ago)

100% agreed. I used the graphic to illustrate the point but really should have just linked to the Wikipedia article, which explains the difference.

In the instance I replied to, the slippery slope is invoked but the steps are not described, and no evidence is provided.

Besides, I'd argue (in good company) that centrism is and has been a cloak for fascism.

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 0 points 13 hours ago

Here, it's what I hoped was obvious shorthand for a subjective value set with no clear, well-defined boundaries of what is or is not defined for the practice of tolerance.

Most descriptions of tolerance are set by simply being allowed to exist, or a set of principles which are a bit nebulous in practice, like how the UN tries to define it.

Do you have a favorite courtroom-ready definition of the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" that would apply in every state equally to show anyone what they can and can't say with perfect objective clarity? I would love to hear it.

So when people are defining the term with the absence of the opposite of the term, it means the term is ultimately being used to define itself.