The sloganeering about "freedom of speech" or "cancel culture" has, at this point, really run its course and it's completely obvious that it is but a thin veneer over opinions that, for now, cannot be stated in polite company.
Then it ended, because slippery slope is a 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.
It will get worse. It will be about people in power going unchallenged. Wake up.
> “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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
Still waiting for an example of someone being charged and convicted for peaceful protest.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/steven-pinker-jordan-peters...
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.
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.
Fascists don't "recruit" anyone - as a cult of power they require full compliance, so they're incompatible with a great many conservatives and essentially all free-speech advocates.
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.