Slippery Slope Arguments
One of the most common ways misinformation gains traction is by turning a hypothetical possibility into an assumed future certainty. This is often called a slippery slope argument: the claim that if one step is allowed, a far more extreme outcome will inevitably follow. Sometimes it is framed as caution. Often it is presented as prediction. But in many cases, it is speculation dressed up as inevitability.
This tactic can be persuasive because it begins with something plausible. Most laws, policies, and social systems can change over time. Risks can exist. Safeguards can fail. But slippery slope arguments often skip over the crucial middle steps: evidence, probability, oversight, legal limits, democratic decision-making, and the fact that future changes usually require deliberate choices rather than happening automatically.
In discussions about Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), this often appears in claims that allowing MAiD under one set of circumstances means society will inevitably end up allowing it in all circumstances, or that every eligibility expansion proves a loss of control. But legal systems do not operate on autopilot. In Canada, every major MAiD change has involved court rulings, parliamentary debate, legislation, committee study, regulatory standards, and public scrutiny. That is the opposite of an uncontrolled slide.
Slippery slope claims can also make rare or contested possibilities feel immediate and certain. A person may hear that something could happen someday, then gradually absorb that it will happen, or is already happening now. This shift from possibility to certainty is powerful because it activates fear while bypassing evidence.
That does not mean all warnings about future risks are invalid. Some concerns are reasonable and deserve serious attention. The key question is whether the argument is supported by evidence and a clear causal pathway, or whether it relies mainly on anxiety and imagination.
When you encounter slippery slope claims online, ask:
Is this outcome actually inevitable, or merely possible?
What evidence shows this chain of events is occurring?
What safeguards, laws, or decision points are being ignored?
Is fear being used where proof is missing?
Recognizing the difference between a realistic caution and a rhetorical slippery slope can help separate thoughtful debate from misinformation.
References
Eric Matheson (2023). How to Know If Your Slope is Slippery. Value Judgements Substack
What is the Slippery Slope Fallacy? (YouTube Short)
Volokh, E. (2003). The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope. Harvard Law Review, 116(4), 1026–1137.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.