[aguaviva]

This is how oppression starts

More often though it starts with wave after wave of logical fallacy.

As applies to your critique above, for example:

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

[Etherlord87]

A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.

[aguaviva]

In this case it plainly is though, if we just think about what they're saying.

[Etherlord87]

Plainly to you, but not to me. What isn't obvious to everyone, isn't really obvious. You didn't care to explain what kind of stopping mechanisms are there, that make it not a slippery slope.

Rowan Atkinson gives some nice examples here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

I'd say rather than there being *a risk* of descending too low on that slippery slope, we already have plenty of evidence this already happened. I'm from Poland and recently a party in ruling coalition proposed criminalizing hate speech on the Internet. Fortunately, precisely the slippery slope rhetoric, supported by evidence from countries like UK, seems to be enough of a backlash to stop politicians from following such ideas.

[aguaviva]

For starters -- the commenter wasn't actually suggesting that this kind of content needs to be suppressed.

In order to have a slippery slope, you need something to extrapolate from. But the commenter wasn't providing that.

[Etherlord87]

I disagree, it seems what is obvious to you isn't to me and vice-versa so we're unlikely to have anything productive going on here.