This isn't "randomly" talking about fallacies at all. The very definition of a slippery slope argument is the assertion that a relatively small, perhaps not so controversial, decision will lead inexorably to a horrifying conclusion:

> Begin by banning his poems not because you object to them but because you object to him, and you will end, as the nazis did, by slaughtering his wife and children.

That is absolutely a slippery slope argument, and I would argue it is, in this case, also fallacious.

Auden's argument here is "the Nazis did thing X, you are doing thing X, therefore you will commit horrifying atrocities the same way the Nazis did." But when restated that way -- and I will absolutely argue that it is a fair restatement, if much less poetic -- the argument's weaknesses become a bit more evident. I'd also argue farther than Auden's argument is unsound, in that his first premise is extremely shaky: by saying "because you object to [Pound]," he is rather explicitly drawing a comparison between objecting to someone because of their actions -- e.g., supporting fascists who were literally at war with America and its allies -- and objecting to someone because of their nature -- e.g., because someone is Jewish.

I don't doubt Auden's earnestness and sincerity here, but I'm absolutely not persuaded that a publisher dropping an author over outspoken political stances they vehemently disagree with is a first step toward totalitarianism.

But maybe there's another Fallacy Fallacy here. I mean, we're all very good these days at pointing out slippery slopes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all slippery slopes are invalid, does it? After all, isn't it possible that there are some matters where giving that first inch thereby makes it easier to give that second inch?

The slippery slope fallacy isn't that the first inch makes the second easier; it's that the first inch will unintentionally result in the second inch. It's a fallacy of assuming that certain consequences will result from that initial step, contrary to the intentions behind the initial step. Auden isn't claiming that Cerf wants to slaughter Pound's wife and children. He's claiming that the decision to ban Pound's poems will ultimately result in the slaughter of Pound's wife and children at Cerf's hands; that's what happened with the Nazis; quod erat demonstratum.

Exactly.

And indeed there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy.