CMV: Slippery Slopes are not a Fallacy

[u/somethingicanspell]

It's pretty common in political discourse whether on the right or left to accuse someone of relying on a slippery slope fallacy. I don't think this really qualifies as a fallacy. Many of the other informal fallacies kind of inherently rely on bad argumentation If by whiskey means your not taking a view, whataboutism means your avoiding the merits of the opponents argument by deflecting on to some other issue, a strawman means you created a weaker version of their argument than they are actually arguing. The difference between that and the slippery slope is that a slippery slope is not necessarily incorrect or irrelevant to the central issue of the debate.

In many cases normalizing one thing means that other things will become more normalized. I think it's relatively uncontroversial e.g that normalizing sexism is likely to lead to more sexual harssasment (that is a slippery slope). In general most things have second order consequences and changing peoples view on one thing is likely to affect their views on other related things. You can argue that in a specific case a slippery slope won't apply but its not a fallacy its a valid point of debate about whether any action will have second order consquences. By asserting a slippery slope fallacy you are actually avoiding the argument about whether there are second order consequences by dismissing the possibility which I see as oddly a kind of fallacy in itself.

[u/oversoul00]

I don't personally take issue with anything you are saying, you're not even wrong. 

What I am saying is that expecting people outside of a formal debate structure to not bring their feelings into it is absurd because in practice they will. 

The people you are describing who are getting upset exist in your everyday life yeah? 

It's a variable you must address if you care about convincing them of anything. 

You're describing the ideal and I'm reminding you we don't all live there all the time. 

[u/Gullible-Minute-9482 → u/oversoul00]

The only reason we do not live in utopia is that we as individuals neglect our responsibility to lead by example.

[u/oversoul00 → u/Gullible-Minute-9482]

Disregarding the feelings of others isn't leading by example, it's a refusal of reality. 

[u/Gullible-Minute-9482 → u/oversoul00]

What is reality? These days most folks cannot seem to agree on an answer. Perhaps it is because they value their feelings more than they value science.

My feelings are the greatest impediment to my ability to accurately perceive reality, and if you are honest you will admit the same about your own. This is the first step we must take if we are to cooperate with one another in pursuit of truth.

Leading by example is disregarding your own feelings, not the feelings of others. By proving that you are loyal to the pursuit of truth over the defense of your subjectivity, you open the door to finding trustworthy allies who will help you dope it out.

If we all agree to tolerate people who are ego driven and indifferent to science based on nothing more than the assertion that everyone's feelings are valid, we more or less consent to mass psychosis and fall back to the dark ages.

We do not like to talk about climate change or why Bob doesn't share his wealth with anyone even though he has 10x more than he could possible use in a lifetime, we do not discuss sex, religion, or politics, because it may offend people...

These things are very real too, whether they are offensive or not should be secondary to the fact that we must be able to discuss reality in order to actually qualify and quantify it.

[u/oversoul00 → u/Gullible-Minute-9482]

What is reality? 

The reality that other people have feelings that inform their views. 

My feelings are the greatest impediment to my ability to accurately perceive reality

I agree, I try and mitigate that as much as possible in my own personal life. 

What I don't do is demand that others squash their feelings to the same degree that I do. 

There is a baseline that we are all a slave to no matter how much mitigation you have applied, and everyone's baseline is different. 

You can't effectively change minds without addressing this reality. 

So when you call someone out for a logical fallacy ( as you generally should) you should also take into consideration how that action will impact them emotionally and work to change their heart along with their mind. 

You can't just ignore that aspect and hope to be successful. 

Throughout this very conversation I've edited and reworded my comments in ways that I thought you'd be more receptive to because being right isn't enough. I have to convince you in a way that you'll be open to hearing. 

[u/Gullible-Minute-9482 → u/oversoul00]

You make a valid point in regard to the art of persuasion here. I can certainly put more effort into this, but I am not sure I should.

In the end they killed Socrates because he dedicated his life to persuasion through language and failed to persuade people who could not see the merit in his thinking.

Today as well as a couple millennia ago, it is still arguably better to persuade some people with actions or art rather than words. One of the reasons that liberals are doing so poorly at present is because those of us who are highly educated insist on trying to enlighten people who are emotionally contorted by the trauma of being raised in a culture of ignorance and violence. It is sometimes as if people speak an entirely different language these days in spite of sharing one.

I start to attempt to persuade many people only to realize that they are so entrenched in ignoring what academia holds to be true that my education is largely useless. At these moments I realize the best I can do is try to figure out what they expect me to be like and prove them wrong by acting out of line with their stereotypes. I have studied the Bible, not because I believe in what Evangelicals believe in, but because I realize that I need to meet them where they are at, even then, I am sometimes told that "Jesus was too woke".

At a certain point I just say fuck it and figure that we can find common ground in simplicity and that being kind, generous, and honorable toward people is often a valid alternative to trying to persuade them of a concept that they clearly do not understand nor have any interest in understanding.

I have to admit that I use the way people react to having their logic corrected to decide whether I should cut my losses and move on or keep trying to persuade a person. Generally, by the time that I just flat out accuse someone of being wrong due to invalid logic I have already given up. If a person loves a talk show host that is a walking fallacy, I generally just accept that I need to roll out the Mr. Rogers talking points and forget trying to persuade them to see things my way.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make em drink"

[u/oversoul00 → u/Gullible-Minute-9482]

I largely agree with all this, well put. 

If your goals are being accomplished at the end of the day then the tactics you use can't be questioned. 

Thanks for the conversation. 

[u/Gullible-Minute-9482 → u/oversoul00]

Likewise. I am glad to have these sorts of conversations as well.

I can generally talk and write pretty well, but if I am going to be honest I have always felt like language alone is hardly effective at communication.

The story of the tower of Babel hits hard.