It's true. It's an abstract concept.<<BTW, that's digital blackface and now hateful
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/protecting-outrageous-offensive-speech
"Kneeling is hateful to our troops":
https://reason.com/2021/02/24/tennessee-republicans-kneeling-student-athletes-national-anthem/
Tennessee Republicans Call on University Presidents To Punish Student-Athletes for Kneeling
These demands obviously violate the First Amendment.
All of Tennessee's Republican state senators have signed a letter to the state's university presidents and chancellors asking them to prevent student-athletes from kneeling during the national anthem.
"To address this issue, we encourage each of you to adopt policies within your respective athletic departments to prohibit any such actions moving forward," wrote the lawmakers.
"You're being hateful to our cops":
https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...-bill-making-crime-insult-officer/6919860002/
Insulting a police officer could become a crime in Kentucky
FRANKFORT — A Senate committee advanced a bill Thursday enhancing punishments for crimes related to rioting, including a provision making it a crime to insult or taunt a police officer to the point it could provoke a violent response.
Sen. Danny Carroll, R-Benton, a retired police officer and lead sponsor of Senate Bill 211, told the committee his legislation was a response to "riots" seen in many cities throughout the country last summer, including Louisville.
"This is not about lawful protest in any way, shape, form or fashion," Carroll said. "This country was built on lawful protest, and it's something that we must maintain — our citizens' right to do so. What this deals with are those who cross the line and commit criminal acts."
"Boycotting Israel is Anti-Semitic & hate speech":
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17...sN0ITuxdwyXtqFS_f__-SSuL6zzH7nAPRdBfkyXJhwqtk
A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
A major attack on the First Amendment: No credible advocate of free expression can remain silent about this “free speech exception for Israel.”
fine, the Citizens United ruling did not result in a slippery slope of pervasive lobbying and bribery of our politicians. The Shelby v. Holder ruling did not result in as slippery slope of pervasive attack and dismantling of the voting rights act.It's true. It's an abstract concept.
So is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. They exist only in the minds of people that cite these jingles; and in the minds of those that acknowledge them when they are cited.
Even so, I get it. I understand the metaphors. But I don't consider them 'facts;' as some seem to do.
The so-called 'slippery slope' is simply a long standing metaphor. It has no basis in reality, and can't be presented as evidence in any court in the developed world.
Similar to the mystical character 'Q.'
Maybe if someone else made the argument instead:
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-...l-fallacies/logical-fallacies-slippery-slope/
Slippery Slope Fallacy
A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion. Along the way, each step or event in the faulty logic becomes more and more improbable.
Example:
If we enact any kind of gun control laws, the next thing you know, we won’t be allowed to have any guns at all. When that happens, we won’t be able to defend ourselves against terrorist attacks, and when that happens terrorists will take over our country. Therefore, gun control laws will cause us to lose our country to terrorists.
See Dr. Fallacy in the comic below try to get away with this fallacy. Fortunately, Captain Logic saves logic and saves the day!
In this example, Dr. Fallacy is following a slippery slope to get to the point that any kind of gun regulation will lead to terrorists taking over the country. The series of events is extremely improbable, and we simply can’t make claims like this and be taken seriously in our arguments.
Of course, this example is extreme, but we do need to make sure, if we are creating a line of reasoning in terms of events leading to other events, that we aren’t falling into a slippery slope fallacy.
It's not that one thing never leads to another.
I never said that. I implied whomever is in power can dictate what hate speech is to suppress dissent. If you think the courts or SCOTUS are in favor of equality at this point in time, or congress represents the people's good will and not that of the donor class, I don't know what to tell you.
I never said that.
It seems the legislation passed in 2013.
