> Next step is to add your race, then income, then who you voted for

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

sophrosyne42 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

A guess for what's next is not a slippery slope argument, let alone a fallacy.

	▲	ranger_danger 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It was not phrased as a guess though, but as a "fact" that cannot be proven

▲

fsflover 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

From your link:

> non-fallacious forms of the argument can also exist.[7]: 273–311

▲

fc417fc802 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Also most human communication isn't about formal logical reasoning. It's only a fallacy when applied in the form "A therefore B". We can make all sorts of useful and relevant observations about human and societal behavior that aren't logically rigorous.

▲

ranger_danger 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes they can, but claiming a theoretical future event as fact (or inevitable) I would consider particularly fallacious as it's impossible to prove.

And I think history also shows these claims rarely end up happening the way these alarmists think it will.

Usually when a slope appears, regulation steps in, technology evolves, or the culture shifts, rather than society devolving into some inescapable dystopian hellscape.

	▲	fsflover 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Google has been following the trend of locking down Android for a decade. The slippery slope is a fact here.