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."
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."
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.