I’m curious to hear about real examples of how a reasonable compromise slid down the slippery slope to the detriment of society. There seems to be a belief that the slippery slope actually happens, or can happen. Personally, I cannot think of a good example of such an event, probably due to my general lack of historical knowledge.
Without a reference point, it’s easy to think that the SS arguments are a bunch of garbage, just used by extremists to justify their unreasonable views.
I’m just not seeing how a ban on teflon bullets, or reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions turns into ‘no guns for anybody’ and ‘no choice at all’.
I slipped again.
Cheesesteak, history does present parallels of totalitarian regimes which have imposed progressively more restrictive/outrageous social policies. The dangers of not standing up to incremental injustice have been noted particularly in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
Unfortunately, such examples encourage extremists to entrench themselves behind the barricades of “no compromise” even in cases where such an outcome seems far less likely.
The counterargument, of course, is that most Germans probably did not think genocide was a liekly result of requiring Jews to wear the Star of David, either.
To me, the distinction has to be made on a case-by-case basis, with the guiding principles being: Is this step ethical in and of itself? Is this step dangerous in and of itself? Is this step just, in and of itself? When speaking of public policy decisions, I would also add Is this step legal/constitutional in and of itself?
While the slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy, I can think of few traits more necessary to the peaceful exercise of democracy than the willingness to compromise.