That's a misunderstanding of the slippery slope logical fallacy.

The slippery slope fallacy is when someone says that the causal chain A to B to C will necessarily play out.

It's not a fallacy if they're arguing instead for its plausibility.

The fallacy also doesn't assert that slippery slopes don't exist and never play out in reality.

So it's false to say that the slippery slope as a concept is itself a fallacy. That doesn't follow from the slippery slope logical fallacy as it's formally defined.

Oh come on. They've already come for wall street bets for putting hedge funds in a difficult position.

It will get worse. It will be about people in power going unchallenged. Wake up.

How have they come for wallstreetbets? Huffman testified to congress:

> “WallStreetBets may look sophomoric or chaotic from the outside, but the fact that we are here today means they’ve managed to raise important issues about fairness and opportunity in our financial system,” Huffman said. “I’m proud they used Reddit to do so.”

“Slippery slope” is not a “fallacy”.

Is there a name for the fallacy where people think just because a type of argument has a name then it must be a fallacy?

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

You'll be a fascist sooner or later, don't worry.

By this logic, we shouldn't make or enforce laws because someday, someone can pass a law against harmless behavior.

Regulation, moderation, and law enforcement are always a balancing act. We can't just say that balance is an impossible dream, so let's just give up.

> By this logic, we shouldn't make or enforce laws because someday, someone can pass a law against harmless behavior.

In a so-called liberal state we shouldn't send people behind bars for political reasons, not even fascists. Sending the people that protested at the Capitol behind bars is being done as a result of politics.

You are forgetting the word "purely." If some fascist incites people to riot and innocent police officers get killed (hypothetical example), then there are strong political reasons to put the perpetrators behind bars for their crimes. Law and order is a political issue. Protection of institutions is a political issue.

The First Amendment doesn't say you can incite a riot as long as it is a political riot. That a crime is politically motivated (or politically impactful) does not somehow absolve the perpetrator.

Do you understand how high the bar is for a conviction in an incitement case?

Surely you don't believe that the only politically motivated crimes are cases of incitement...yet I think you're a bit off track anyway, for a different reason.

> In a so-called liberal state we shouldn't send people behind bars for political reasons, not even fascists

Note the "shouldn't" -- even if your point were valid, it's moot because this is a conversation about "should" not "do."

Gitlow v. New York upheld conviction based on a loose interpretation of "clear and present danger," and later Feiner v. New York held that the police can take action against speech when there is a clear and present danger. But again, none of that matters because we're not debating legal theory, nor implementation of law.

Are you suggesting that we should pardon all criminals who are motivated in part or in whole by political reasons?

Please provide an example of someone who was sent to jail for protesting (and only protesting) at the Capitol on Jan 6.

They must not have committed any of the following crimes: calling for violence, assaulting another person, or destroying public property.

My girlfriend had at least 3 family members there who went, marched, and went home. None of them were tracked or charged with a crime.

They were definitely tracked: https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/fbi-t...

The Berlin wall was called the Antifashistischer Schutzwall (anti-fascist protection wall). A lot of the repression in communist countries was justified with reference to fascists and reactionaries.

While they may not call him a fascist outright—it would be indelicate considering his Jewish ancestry—there are plenty on the left who consider Pinker's thinking a sort of gateway drug to fascism.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/steven-pinker-jordan-peters...

Those two claims are vastly different, aren't they?

First they came for the fascists. Then they came for the conservatives. Which made fascists recruit conservatives. Then they came for free speech advocates. Which made fascists recruit them. Then they came for capitalists. Which made the fascists recruit them.

Don’t you worry, the fight isn’t over. The more you ban, the larger the counter groups get and the more radicalized they get. You see it today already. Book burners were never on the correct side of history.

You're right. They were on the side of the fascists. And the Allied world came together to stop them.

Strongly consider who it is you're allying with and what it about you. It's not as heroic as you would love for it to seem.

Yep, but even so the “free speech” thing is a false premise to begin with.

The public rebuke against places like Parler and Gab is not an attack on free speech. It’s ostracism. Those people still have 100% of their rights to free speech perfectly intact.

The constitution protects against restricts on your right to expression. It does not protect against other people refusing to listen to you or refusing to put up with you.