Slippery slope is actually a kind of logical fallacy.
The author needs to prove that suppressing fascist speech actually has some kind of negative effect or that it leads to other kinds of speech being suppressed. You have to look at intent here to see whether the suppression will lead to a slippery slope. In this case, it's not about suppressing speech it's about removing people who act in bad faith.
On this forum we often suppress the speech of people we disagree with. And people get banned too. If we subscribe to the author's point of view, then why do we have moderation or shadowbanning in the first place?
Not that I agree with the post or anything, but slippery slope being a fallacy is a fallacy. Key fact is the idea of precedent which is by definition is quite similar to the slippery slope idea (assuming you disagree with the precedent in question).
Hmm maybe you didn't mean that slippery slope is not a fallacy, but rather not always? because it can be a fallacy. Question is if it is here: does it appeal to emotion without arguments (or as you mentioned with precedents) to back up that if event A will happen, then event Z will?
The issue lies with people like you labelling speech that goes against the narrative "fascist" speech. Clearly the definition of fascism is lost on you if you are supportive of banning speech.
Its dishonest to label all of the speech coming out of sites like parlor fascist. Its clearly politically motivated censorship.
I can find 1000s of examples of people calling for violence against Trump supporters on Twitter or Facebook, but no-one is calling for Twitter to be removed from the app store...
1. People like who? What are the defining characteristics, other than, "advocate deplatforming fascists"?
2. What is your definition of fascism?
3. Who is labelling all the speech coming out of Parler as "fascist"?
4. Show us the examples of people on Twitter and Facebook making actual plans and gathering the required equipment and supplies, rather than just wishing ill against others?
Comments
Slippery slope is actually a kind of logical fallacy.
The author needs to prove that suppressing fascist speech actually has some kind of negative effect or that it leads to other kinds of speech being suppressed. You have to look at intent here to see whether the suppression will lead to a slippery slope. In this case, it's not about suppressing speech it's about removing people who act in bad faith.
On this forum we often suppress the speech of people we disagree with. And people get banned too. If we subscribe to the author's point of view, then why do we have moderation or shadowbanning in the first place?
Not that I agree with the post or anything, but slippery slope being a fallacy is a fallacy. Key fact is the idea of precedent which is by definition is quite similar to the slippery slope idea (assuming you disagree with the precedent in question).
Hmm maybe you didn't mean that slippery slope is not a fallacy, but rather not always? because it can be a fallacy. Question is if it is here: does it appeal to emotion without arguments (or as you mentioned with precedents) to back up that if event A will happen, then event Z will?
The issue lies with people like you labelling speech that goes against the narrative "fascist" speech. Clearly the definition of fascism is lost on you if you are supportive of banning speech.
Its dishonest to label all of the speech coming out of sites like parlor fascist. Its clearly politically motivated censorship.
I can find 1000s of examples of people calling for violence against Trump supporters on Twitter or Facebook, but no-one is calling for Twitter to be removed from the app store...
1. People like who? What are the defining characteristics, other than, "advocate deplatforming fascists"?
2. What is your definition of fascism?
3. Who is labelling all the speech coming out of Parler as "fascist"?
4. Show us the examples of people on Twitter and Facebook making actual plans and gathering the required equipment and supplies, rather than just wishing ill against others?
What narrative?