Hacker News Reader

Comment by TameAntelope | Hacker News Reader

A "Slippery slope" argument is a fallacy; when the thing we don't want to "slip" to comes, there is absolutely nothing stopping us from simply, well, stopping.

What you're really saying is that you don't have any problem with this. One thing at a time!

View on HN

Nothing, and I mean nothing, has done so much to damage our thinking as the idea of the "Slippery Slope Fallacy", it's allowed people to suggest a self-evidently absurd idea, that precedent does not have any impact on political, socio-cultural, or legal realities, but avoid having to make such a ridiculous assertion nakedly.

Instead, they can hide behind "that's the Slippery Slope Fallacy", and as far as they're concerned, they've invoked a magic incantation, the word "Fallacy", that defeats any and all human reason or experience.

If I had a time-machine, my only goal would be to prevent this noxious, damaging concept, from ever invading the popular culture, it has damaged our thinking far more than it has ever aided it.

You can’t hate the slippery slope fallacy out of existence; it’s real, it applies here, and it means the argument being put forward, that allowing one thing must mean we allow something similar but worse, is not a valid one.

It’s not magic, it’s simply rational. Allowing something doesn’t mean you must then allow something else, that isn’t how it works, and it’s probably more noxious and damaging to society that such a thought is allowed to propagate such as what you’ve written here.

There's a reason we have the phrase "crossing the Rubicon". You can sneer and say that crossing a river doesn't have anything to do with the fall of the Roman Republic all you like.

Not the same thing, but it does explain your confusion.

It is an ironic image, to think that the development of the idea of a slippery slope fallacy could be itself a slippery slope.

> there is absolutely nothing stopping us from simply, well, stopping

Inertia is as much of a thing in politics as it is in physics.

And a precedent will always be misused.

I'm not sure if I buy this argument; the legislature need not, and generally does not, work on the basis of previous precedent. There are two main responses to the idea that we ought not to do X because it's a slippery slope to Y in political theory: firstly, people disagree about how bad Y is (unless Y is made patently absurd); secondly, slippery slopes require justification.

It's evident that one can't simply allege the existence of any slippery slope - for example, the 'slippery slope' of legal gay marriage leading to adult-child and human-animal relationships. So there must be some work put in to justify the existence of a slope which is claimed to exist.

In particular as it relates to issues of free speech and 'facial recognition', I have seen no evidence presented to justify this slope as a rhetorical or political device.

If only that were true!

In reality it just isnt!

It's the 'thin end of the wedge' as they say in England!

Or, in HN language, it's Scope Creep.

You could try and claim that Scope Creep is a fallacy, because all you have to do it stop, but you know that in reality the deliverables change and the scope widens!

A substantial part of my job is to eliminate scope creep, so yes you absolutely can “just stop”.

Irrational people can use things like momentum and inertia in their arguments, but that’s quite easily stopped by a rational argument outlining the differences between the thing that was allowed and the proposed thing.

if people could "just stop" before the creep happened, your job of eliminating said creep would be extraneous

I'm honestly confused about what your point is, because so far it seems like you're suggesting that since people sometimes act irrationally, there's no such thing as the logical fallacy called "Slippery Slope"...

They are saying that your job is about preventing a slippery slope phenomena as pertains to scope creep, where adopting one large change can increase the propensity to consider another. I think you could also more accurately refer to it as a "sunk cost fallacy", a concept which you should also be familiar with. Rather than keep the product at its current size and risk an underwhelming release, we've already gone this far, why not give the sharks in the tank the frikkin' laser beams Dr. Evil once suggested?

I think the sunk cost is an example where there is a slope that actually is slippery due to to psychological biases. In the case of the live facial recognition, we are instead talking about a slope that is slippery because it gives power to the state, where governments are known for using their existing power to consolidate yet more power.

It is unfortunate that you are confused, friend, but I stand ready to answer any questions you have, if you wish to rectify that situation.

You can't stop it if you're not the one in power. The slope is the abuse of power. There is no fallacy, but apparently naivete.

If your legislature does not listen to you (because you're "not the one in power") then that's a far more serious issue than facial recognition by any metric. If the government is abusing power, that's not the same thing as doing it with the support of the populace, as the 'slippery slope' argument supposes.

Devil's advocate: Why must facial recognition necessarily set us on the the slope to abuse of power? What precedent is there to suppose that?

> when the thing we don't want to "slip" to comes, there is absolutely nothing stopping us from simply, well, stopping.

Yes there is: live facial recognition.

It's safe to say that TameAntelope deeply trusts the invigilators, and believes with high confidence that any undesired "slip" can be prevented; that the power afforded by heightened mass surveillance won't be used to coerce it into enactment against the will of anyone important to them.

Pardon? Where did I say any of that?

I said it was safe to say about you, I did not say it was your exact statement about yourself.

But, if I had to point at just one instance of your past behaviour from a cursory glance to help make that connection more apparent...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31809385

In the linked thread from 17 days ago, you are carrying water for enormous corporations to be able to collect and sell data on people using their extremely broadly adopted platforms - the sort which I personally would prefer not to use in part due to the level of data collection that takes place, but would begin to feel societally disenfranchised if I did not. You even go so far as to boast of contacting your local representative to campaign against the opinion that these big tech platform's information dealership ought to be regulated! You say "I love the iPhone and App Store, and Apple has earned my trust with their stewardship of it". I'd feel bad for you if those corporations didn't love you too, since you're so willing to pave the way for further data collection.

And in this thread, today, you are talking against concerns that a government running Live Facial Recognition could result in overreach as the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". So has this government also not earned your trust based on which groups of people it will and which it won't leverage this information against? Aren't the people who speak against it only making "irrational" arguments, and therefore not worthy minds of great concern to you? Why regulate power when it suits you, be it consolidated in a corporation or a state?

> And in this thread, today, you are talking against concerns that a government running Live Facial Recognition could result in overreach as the "Slippery Slope Fallacy".

I did not do this, you inferred my position, but all I wish to discuss is whether or not the person I replied to had a problem with this already-happening use of facial recognition, or if they were indeed okay with this use, but not some other, imagined, use.

Policymaking is not frictionless. Certain important concepts serve as Schelling points where resistance can be focused, and once policy moves beyond that point, those harmed by various subsequent changes will have narrower coalitions supporting their side.

In the same vein, people make a big deal about Caesar crossing a particular river, despite there being an infinite number of places to turn around between the Rubicon and Rome.

Not if you think in systems with positive feedback loops.

For example: lets stop the military and industrial complex.

The loop in this case is a government can more easily arrest anyone who opposes the government with “probable cause” or equivalent. For example a journalist.

So we do not need serious policing in super markets. Ordinary people are no criminals. The random rare thief is not making any serious damage.

The problem is that you have no actual principles or tangible goals so it is impossible to negotiate with you. It is like negotiating with a bully who promises to only take half of your lunch money, and then the next day you negotiate with him to only take three-quarters of your lunch money.

It is a slippery slope when there's no defined stopping point. Your arguments can still be applied after you've implemented your "solution".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com