[gradExMachina]

> A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience.

With all due respect, innocent people are dying because certain individuals incite violence against them.

It's easy to express you support free speech when you are not on the receiving end and don't need to deal with insane people who think you are the devil-manifest.

Would you be okay if your friends or family died in a shooting from an individual who consumed a particular class of content?

Reality is that nothing is done in a vacuum, every action matters, every discussion matters, everything we utter matters.

[uLogMicheal]

> The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect.

This does not fall into the fallacy aspect as it is already happening, groups are already being exploited for ulterior motives to control thought. Part of having a background in security research leads one to detect vulnerabilities. This is a gaping vulnerability.

> With all due respect, innocent people are dying because certain individuals incite violence against them.

Let us be clear that inciting violence is criminal and not considered protected speech.

> Would you be okay if your friends or family died in a shooting from an individual who consumed a particular class of content?

Less people are dying today than have historically died from hateful conduct. You cannot crush hate out of a society with censorship. Driving hateful behavior underground only emboldens the extremists. Only through education and the ability for an individual to observe how consensus genuinely rejects their hate can you change such attitudes.

You also cannot defeat an assumed logical fallacy with a different one, you are appealing to extremes when you take into account statistics and history.

[gradExMachina]

> This does not fall into the fallacy aspect as it is already happening, groups are already being exploited for ulterior motives to control thought. Part of having a background in security research leads one to detect vulnerabilities. This is a gaping vulnerability.

Part of being a minority is being afraid to walk in the streets because you don't know what kind of media a random person has been consuming [1]. Examples like [1] are many and will only become more frequent as some people succumb to hate and others exploit them.

> Let us be clear that inciting violence is criminal and not considered protected speech.

Of course it is, but why won't anyone think of the children, wink wink, nudge nudge. If only there was some hero to save us all from those monsters!

That line of speech is frequent in certain circles and a certain class has been hearing this on repeat for a few years now.

> Less people are dying today than have historically died from hateful conduct. You cannot crush hate out of a society with censorship.

I am not keen on crushing anyone, I am keen on continuing living. Being visibly trans in a backwards country with crazy people is terrifying. I do not recommend.

> Driving hateful behavior underground only emboldens the extremists. Only through education and the ability for an individual to observe how consensus genuinely rejects their hate can you change such attitudes.

What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop?

> you are appealing to extremes when you take into account statistics and history.

The funny thing when you think about statistics is that those events that people conveniently aggregate to cutesy little numbers are happening to real people with real friends and families, with their own dreams and aspirations.

For you I am just a statistic, a tiny minority that you can look from afar. But for me, it's my life.

[1] https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/23/woman-86-beaten-wheel...

[uLogMicheal]

How do you separate those cases from these cases?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil...

A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda?

> What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop?

Is algorithmic and incentivized actor driven censorship considered consensus? From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality. Censorship driven echo chambers support some opinions while they crush others. In some respects, we need more confrontation of opinion in society. Too few are forced to question themselves in current times, emboldened by these digital echo chambers, opinion solidified in thoughts and actions.

I genuinely hope that we can find a way to end this age of artificial division. Too many agendas being programmed into brains, too little reality driven truth.

[PartiallyTyped]

> How do you separate those cases from these cases?

> https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil...

> A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda?

See, the difference is in one case a person was beat-up, and there's evidence, their life was possibly in danger, and in what you presented you have a hear-say. A false report. The difference is that one has the potential to cause harm, and the other is actual harm caused.

> From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality.

From my perspective I fear for my life. This is what is on the line here. Not my ability to commit hate-crimes, not my ability to spew bigotry. Consensus - actual people - on average are understanding. On the other hand, there's a trigger-happy, outrage-addicted, gun-owning, self-proclaimed-terrorist and outright blood-thirsty minority who is angry because the broader society doesn't accept their bigotry.

I will repeat, to you, it's some imaginary threat that has the potential to happen 60 steps down the road if you concede that hate-speech is bad for everyone and pushes people to commit atrocities, and to me, it's my life.

[uLogMicheal]

Not sure if you meant to reply on an alt...

> See, the difference is in one case a person was beat-up, and there's evidence, their life was possibly in danger, and in what you presented you have a hear-say. A false report. The difference is that one has the potential to cause harm, and the other is actual harm caused.

Bad actors harm everyone, rights protect against bad actors from breaking true consensus. In that case, they went a step further than a false report and actually staged the crime as well for "evidence". This is not the only occurrence, but one of the most high profile occurrences to have been caught.

> From my perspective I fear for my life. This is what is on the line here. Not my ability to commit hate-crimes, not my ability to spew bigotry. Consensus - actual people - on average are understanding. On the other hand, there's a trigger-happy, outrage-addicted, gun-owning, self-proclaimed-terrorist and outright blood-thirsty minority who is angry because the broader society doesn't accept their bigotry.

I am sorry you have personally experienced hatred like this. Even with experience, such fears should not fuel oppression of the world. Many are dying daily from war but personal experiences like this supersede actions against that, why? Please at least see the choice and selection biases in this, fear for your life at minimum invokes an emotional component. If you are unsafe there are likely actions you can take outside of intentionally trying to disrupt the rights of everyone else. Without personal compromise? Maybe not. Much as they want to force their opinions into reality, you want to force yours.

> I will repeat, to you, it's some imaginary threat that has the potential to happen 60 steps down the road if you concede that hate-speech is bad for everyone and pushes people to commit atrocities, and to me, it's my life.

It is not imaginary, it has happened and will continue to happen as long as there is incentive. Hate crimes against minority groups have lessened over time, but I will agree with you in that fear of such has been amplified. Some selectively amplify group positions to intentionally fuel hatred. This serves in two ways, for profit and distraction. Media could not profit from fear unless victims AND threats exist, thus they intentionally amplify opinions that provoke such threats.

We cannot solve the hate problem with censorship and removal of rights. The bad actors do not simply disappear because you no longer allow their thoughts in your reality. You have a right to be you up until violence and they have a right to be them up until violence. Many humans still operate from instinct, maybe the solution to hatred is to teach more to separate instinct and approach reality with logic? That would certainly upset our desire driven sales fueled world of individualization.

[PartiallyTyped]

> Not sure if you meant to reply on an alt...

Not at all, I am fairly open about it because I am making a statement. The statement is that there are bad actors in this forum who silence discussions to push a certain narrative. Dang and whoever else moderates this is very much free to ban me, but they haven't.

> I am sorry you have personally experienced hatred like this. Even with experience, such fears should not fuel oppression of the world.

See, I have a desire to live a life just like you, I have siblings, I have a mother, and they love me and I love them. How will they feel when they will have to bury me because some rando decided to murder me?

You see, in this conversation you are putting the blame on me, for what you believe that I am doing - which I am actually not, if you read my comments in this thread I am very much against censorship as long as it doesn't devolve to hate-speech. My desire to live a life in decency will always trump your desire to enable harm - because those are the consequences - by allowing everyone and anyone to say anything they want and amplify that.

That is what you are doing. Instead of asking what the consequences are for hate-speech, how being bombarded with such speech changes your very own view of reality - just as any other interaction does because such is the way the brain behaves - you are more concerned with telling me to suck it up for being afraid for my life.

In your mind you have vilified me and put me in a position I never did myself. You did all that implicitly. Notice that in none of comments did I directly support censorship. What I support is accountability for the consequences of one's actions - that accountability includes stochastic terrorism.

You can't assume that everything and anything you do happens in a vacuum, people are not closed systems, everything we do matters. I wouldn't be in this position if I was allowed to be in this world, just like you are.

> If you are unsafe there are likely actions you can take outside of intentionally trying to disrupt the rights of everyone else

You are literally putting the blame on me for - let me check my notes - potentially getting murdered by a crazy person, and not on the person who pushed the crazy one over the line, gave them a gun, and pointed at me. You are literally blaming me for my inability to be invincible, and for wanting to live a life of the same quality as you are.

Sure, I can go get locked in an apartment - god knows I am already doing that because I am terrified - what more can I do? Do I not deserve the chance to live a regular life?

Why are you not blaming those who put me in this position in the first place? Why aren't you blaming those who actively cause harm and instead blame the victim for dying or getting assaulted, or harassed or worse?

> Maybe not. Much as they want to force their opinions into reality, you want to force yours.

What opinion am I forcing on anyone? That murdering people is bad? That minorities deserve to live regular lives as everyone else?

> Hate crimes against minority groups have lessened over time,

Really because I see the opposite. Minorities are being denied treatment that existed for decades because of fear mongering despite all actual evidence to the contrary. Is this not a hate-crime? Attacks against trans people have skyrocketed, and so have murders [1,2].

Please tell those families that you are okay with their children getting murdered, because a person can't handle not spilling vitriol.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-rate-trans-people-doubled...

[2] https://time.com/6131444/2021-anti-trans-violence/