Most people use "slippery slope fallacy" wrong. It is a deductive fallacy that assumes you saying if x happens y is logically certain to happen and ect when it is in fact not a guarantee. The fallacy part is assuming the certainty of it deductively, and not inductively.
now, you can make an inductive version of the fallacy but that is not what it properly means nor what people mean when they shout "hey that is a slippery slope fallacy!"
Problem is, when people get called out for being "slippery slope fallacious" 90% of the time they are in fact NOT claiming it is a 100% guarantee deductive way that it logically always follows that the next thing will happen [and some of this is a problem people for much of history regularly use universal or certain language when not actually meaning so], but they are normally often claiming it is actually just very likely [inductive]. So, the only part you can "call them out" would be inductively claiming it isn't actually likely [which I guess would be the inductive version of a "slippery slope fallacy."
It's just a fallacy fallacy. Because the slippery slope fallacy exists in literature, these people think any occurrence is a fallacy. That's like writing a 1000 word essay about why something is wrong, and then ending it with, "And that is why you're a fucking moron" and they ignore the whole essay because of a single ad hominem.
Most fallacies don't even look slightly useful to anyone literate and they hardly exist in online debate. They mostly only exist in spoken debate to sway and manipulate crowds.
It isn't JUST a fallacy fallacy when it isn't even correctly applying the fallacy itself in the first place, since the fallacy isn't valid to then apply the fallacy fallacy to.
Don't get me wrong, they will just throw out random fallacies they heard once on TV and then claim the statement is false because they "used a fallacy on it" which I agree with you in this point.
But my point is, on a proper level, and not just by their nonsense, they are not even using the fallacy correctly in the first place.
They have tried to redefine the fallacy over the years to just include everything even if it was an inductive argument that is reasonably likely, but then that is a meaningless objection when they redefine it that way. You will often see this definition on academic seeming logic websites now, which is totally absurd because by that new definition it is a meaningless fallacy [or more correctly stated, not even one at all the way they have tried to redefine it...].
There is nothing logically wrong with an inductive argument saying if x happens it is likely y and then z will happen, if [when taken to the full account of probability, which often people do ignore the multiplication rule in probability and how dramatically that can effect a result] it is actually likely to.
However, most people use the "slippery slope" fallacy to mean that, and if it truly did mean that then it is a meaningless fallacy and phrase [just like about every word they redefine..... change it to apply to a more general group, but then keep the previous negative connotation that no longer should apply].
So yes, I do agree they are using the fallacy fallacy, but on a more important fundamental level they are not even applying the fallacy they are using the fallacy fallacy of correctly in the first place, which cuts off the fallacy fallacy from their arsenal if you can show that to them [good luck getting them to think lol jk :P]. The actual misuse of the fallacy destroys the fallacy fallacy unless they claim another fallacy that is disputed [but then it would still probably be the fallacy fallacy possibly]
Slippery slope isn't even a fallacy, it's only a fallacy if there is zero evidence for the slippery slope. But if there is evidence, then it's no longer a fallacy.
Most people use "slippery slope fallacy" wrong. It is a deductive fallacy that assumes you saying if x happens y is logically certain to happen and ect when it is in fact not a guarantee. The fallacy part is assuming the certainty of it deductively, and not inductively.
now, you can make an inductive version of the fallacy but that is not what it properly means nor what people mean when they shout "hey that is a slippery slope fallacy!"
Problem is, when people get called out for being "slippery slope fallacious" 90% of the time they are in fact NOT claiming it is a 100% guarantee deductive way that it logically always follows that the next thing will happen [and some of this is a problem people for much of history regularly use universal or certain language when not actually meaning so], but they are normally often claiming it is actually just very likely [inductive]. So, the only part you can "call them out" would be inductively claiming it isn't actually likely [which I guess would be the inductive version of a "slippery slope fallacy."
It's just a fallacy fallacy. Because the slippery slope fallacy exists in literature, these people think any occurrence is a fallacy. That's like writing a 1000 word essay about why something is wrong, and then ending it with, "And that is why you're a fucking moron" and they ignore the whole essay because of a single ad hominem.
Most fallacies don't even look slightly useful to anyone literate and they hardly exist in online debate. They mostly only exist in spoken debate to sway and manipulate crowds.
It isn't JUST a fallacy fallacy when it isn't even correctly applying the fallacy itself in the first place, since the fallacy isn't valid to then apply the fallacy fallacy to.
Don't get me wrong, they will just throw out random fallacies they heard once on TV and then claim the statement is false because they "used a fallacy on it" which I agree with you in this point.
But my point is, on a proper level, and not just by their nonsense, they are not even using the fallacy correctly in the first place.
They have tried to redefine the fallacy over the years to just include everything even if it was an inductive argument that is reasonably likely, but then that is a meaningless objection when they redefine it that way. You will often see this definition on academic seeming logic websites now, which is totally absurd because by that new definition it is a meaningless fallacy [or more correctly stated, not even one at all the way they have tried to redefine it...].
There is nothing logically wrong with an inductive argument saying if x happens it is likely y and then z will happen, if [when taken to the full account of probability, which often people do ignore the multiplication rule in probability and how dramatically that can effect a result] it is actually likely to.
However, most people use the "slippery slope" fallacy to mean that, and if it truly did mean that then it is a meaningless fallacy and phrase [just like about every word they redefine..... change it to apply to a more general group, but then keep the previous negative connotation that no longer should apply].
So yes, I do agree they are using the fallacy fallacy, but on a more important fundamental level they are not even applying the fallacy they are using the fallacy fallacy of correctly in the first place, which cuts off the fallacy fallacy from their arsenal if you can show that to them [good luck getting them to think lol jk :P]. The actual misuse of the fallacy destroys the fallacy fallacy unless they claim another fallacy that is disputed [but then it would still probably be the fallacy fallacy possibly]
Postmodernism: Insert vArIaBlE here [ ]
Slippery slope isn't even a fallacy, it's only a fallacy if there is zero evidence for the slippery slope. But if there is evidence, then it's no longer a fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage
Deductively it is if the result isn't guaranteed. Inductively it only is if the chance is very weak.