Shifting attitudes in the US, and progressivism taking a few steps back?

[ThatRobGuy]

We cant raise the speed limit to 70 because then whats to stop it from going to 90, 100, 200????

For your example, if it was the first time it was proposed, then an accusation of slippery slope would be understandable.


However, if the people suggested that "If they raise it to 70, what's stop them from raising it to 90, 100?" 10 years ago were mocked and laughed at, and then over the course of the next decade, the very same people who were laughing at them proceeded to do exactly that thing and raise it 90 then 100", then that's a different situation.

As I noted earlier on in the thread, the worst thing a political party can do is prove the other side's slope argument for them (thereby retroactively validating it)

 

[durangodawood]

For your example, if it was the first time it was proposed, then an accusation of slippery slope would be understandable.

No it wouldnt.

If the arguments for 70 are strong, and the arguments against 100 are strong, then right off the bat you can dispense with any slippery slope fears.

Honestly its the stupidest principle: That any change off of status quo, even to something demonstrably preferable to most people, means people will lose their minds and follow that vector to an absurd extreme.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I dont really care about "the framing". Crime is visceral personal safety. Like the economy is visceral personal wealth.

People in their voting behavior will not tie crime to the nexus of "cultural values" stuff like abortion, trans things, etc. SF flipped in terms of crime policy as you note. Did it flip its regard for abortion rights, gay rights, etc?

No, it won't flip on gay rights, but those positions are more durable because they're the result of slow moving shifts in attitudes based on organic changes of mindsets spanning decades.

The moves to advance transgender affirmation policies wasn't slow or organic. Much like the "let's completely rethink how we handle crime" initiatives that backfired were rushed in and were not organic.

Those were largely the result of some activists (with a sympathetic media) finding a way to cram it down on everyone via "social mandate" (IE: "this is how it is, there's no room for dissention, if you don't publicly agree with this, then you're a bigot just like those republicans"


The advancement of gay rights was the result of overall changes in attitudes toward the subject and several iterations of "cultural attrition" (which is the polite way of saying that as the older people died off and were replaced by younger generations who weren't bothered by it, the numbers were eventually in their favor to gain things like marriage rights and discrimination protections)

The advancement trans rights seemed like it was a more of an attempt to expedite that organic process (and cram it into 3-5 years), in "ready, fire, aim" fashion, under the threat of accusing people of being bigots if they didn't go along with absolutely all of it.


I would also note that the "social imposition" pertaining to gay issues vs. some of the trans issues is/was wildly different.

The original request of gay people was fairly straight forward and simple, "we want the same marriage protections as straight couples, and apart from that, to be left alone". Over a period of 40 years, it's still pretty much stayed in that box.

That's what the claim of earlier trans activists was too, but it quickly became evident that it really wasn't about "wanting to be left alone", there were a number of social impositions being dictated to people that were "requirements" of being considered "inclusive"


If countries like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Denmark can reverse course on that a bit, it's certainly possible California can as well.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No it wouldnt.

If the arguments for 70 are strong, and the arguments against 100 are strong, then right off the bat you can dispense with any slippery slope fears.

Honestly its the stupidest principle: That any change off of status quo, even to something demonstrably preferable to most people, means people will lose their minds and follow that vector to an absurd extreme.

But that's not the situation being described.

The example I provided was Prager saying "these are the things they're going to push for" and liberal panels mockingly laughing at him and saying "c'mon, nobody saying that...that's not gonna happen, that's just some wacky thing you're making up" (meaning, they viewed those ideas as absurdly extreme themselves at the time, otherwise they would've been answering with "oh yeah, and what's wrong with that?" instead of laughing at his assertions back in 2014 and 2019)

I don't think the strength of the argument has anything to do with it.

For instance, one can make a strong argument for providing housing discrimination protections for trans people
And, one can also make a strong argument that biological males shouldn't be competing physical sports against females

Does the strength of either of those arguments have any impact or bearing on how the national discourse on the subject plays out?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I certainly don't want the Victor to put out the welcome mat for Putin or Netanyahu. That's genocide, not peace, not strength.
You forget that the massive tax cuts for the rich caused trillion dollar deficits. You don't give money back to people who don't need it by letting children go hungry and medically untreated.
When the immigrants leave, crops will be unpicked and jobs will be unfilled and prices will rise and we will have the birth dearth creating stagflation in Asia.
As for killing babies, you may need to stop saying birth control pills kill babies. You may believe they do, other churches don't. We have to say a resounding "no" to hospitals killing miscarrying mothers. America sees that and the unleashed extremism repulses and horrified us.

American citizens know how to pick crops the fact that many will not or do not want to dooes not change that. As someone who actually cannot you can bet I would if I could and in fact was often sad that my grandparents would not let me shuck corn ( even upon them explaining to me that the reasoning was my lack of fine motor skills. If they want to eat many will do it.

 

[BPPLEE]

Theres no principle that if people get a little of something, then they will demand all of it. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they dont.

If slippery slope was a reliable principle then: we should not trust people with some degree of liberty, because thats the start of a slippery slope to them demanding complete liberty, and it will be anarchy!

It's not a universal concept, it applies to some things but not all. When I say something is a slippery slope it doesn't mean everything is a slippery slope.
It's just like saying "If you let the camel get his nose under the tent then he will get his whole body under the tent "
Not everything is a camel

 

[durangodawood]

It's not a universal concept, it applies to some things but not all. When I say something is a slippery slope it doesn't mean everything is a slippery slope.
It's just like saying "If you let the camel get his nose under the tent then he will get his whole body under the tent "
Not everything is a camel

If "slippery slope" is just another way of saying "people actually want X", then its just a bad metaphor. "Slippery" implying its something people lack control over, like sliding down an icy road.

 

[durangodawood]

.....
For instance, one can make a strong argument for providing housing discrimination protections for trans people
And, one can also make a strong argument that biological males shouldn't be competing physical sports against females

Does the strength of either of those arguments have any impact or bearing on how the national discourse on the subject plays out?

Most people will come to see the sense in those two positions. They can both be well reasoned from facts and values most of us agree to.

 

[BPPLEE]

If "slippery slope" is just another way of saying "people actually want X", then its just a bad metaphor. "Slippery" implying its something people lack control over, like sliding down an icy road.

The camel wants to get under the tent.

 

[durangodawood]

The camel wants to get under the tent.

So.... people are like animals, and they cant reason out whats a good middle ground?

Argument from cliche has some drawbacks which are pretty glaring here. Camels nose is evidence for slippery slope.... what?

 

[Merrill]

I certainly don't want the Victor to put out the welcome mat for Putin or Netanyahu. That's genocide, not peace, not strength.
You forget that the massive tax cuts for the rich caused trillion dollar deficits. You don't give money back to people who don't need it by letting children go hungry and medically untreated.
When the immigrants leave, crops will be unpicked and jobs will be unfilled and prices will rise and we will have the birth dearth creating stagflation in Asia.
As for killing babies, you may need to stop saying birth control pills kill babies. You may believe they do, other churches don't. We have to say a resounding "no" to hospitals killing miscarrying mothers. America sees that and the unleashed extremism repulses and horrified us.

so sick of seeing this false left-wing talking point

"massive tax cuts for the rich caused trillion dollar deficits"

facts:

1. The TCJA cuts taxes for all income groups, not just the top. The standard deduction was doubled, saving middle-class Americans a lot of money. The idea that this was a tax cut exclusively for rich people is total nonsense.
2. Between 2016 and 2024 (Trump's term, Biden's term, and after the TCJA was passed), US Federal Revenues increased from 3.27 trillion to 4.44 trillion.

It was federal spending, especially the ARA and IRA (under Biden), that exploded deficits, not the TCJA (and a lot was spent under Trump as well--and for that he deserves criticism)

we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

 

[BCP1928]

But that's not the situation being described.

The example I provided was Prager saying "these are the things they're going to push for" and liberal panels mockingly laughing at him and saying "c'mon, nobody saying that...that's not gonna happen, that's just some wacky thing you're making up" (meaning, they viewed those ideas as absurdly extreme themselves at the time, otherwise they would've been answering with "oh yeah, and what's wrong with that?" instead of laughing at his assertions back in 2014 and 2019)

I don't think the strength of the argument has anything to do with it.

For instance, one can make a strong argument for providing housing discrimination protections for trans people
And, one can also make a strong argument that biological males shouldn't be competing physical sports against females

Does the strength of either of those arguments have any impact or bearing on how the national discourse on the subject plays out?

As to men in women's sports, there is not much left but to rule it out altogether. The States are the ones who make the detailled rules about it, they already, for instance can make rules about relative physical strength, for instance or about post-pubescent transitionals.

 

[RileyG]

Every day Americans are sending a mandate to the radical left. The years of crying wolf have had the opposite effect.

Decent people are finding their voice and saying they do not want babies killed, they do not want illegal aliens flooding in, they don’t want tax and spend, they do not want to project weakness on the global stage, they want to be safe in their cities.

Thank God they are coming forward.

Amen!

 

[RileyG]

I certainly don't want the Victor to put out the welcome mat for Putin or Netanyahu. That's genocide, not peace, not strength.
You forget that the massive tax cuts for the rich caused trillion dollar deficits. You don't give money back to people who don't need it by letting children go hungry and medically untreated.
When the immigrants leave, crops will be unpicked and jobs will be unfilled and prices will rise and we will have the birth dearth creating stagflation in Asia.
As for killing babies, you may need to stop saying birth control pills kill babies. You may believe they do, other churches don't. We have to say a resounding "no" to hospitals killing miscarrying mothers. America sees that and the unleashed extremism repulses and horrified us.

No one was dating birth control is killing babies, they were referring to abortion…..

 

[BPPLEE]

So.... people are like animals, and they cant reason out whats a good middle ground?

Argument from cliche has some drawbacks which are pretty glaring here. Camels nose is evidence for slippery slope.... what?

Camel's nose and slippery slope are pretty much the same thing. Once it starts, it gets worse

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As to men in women's sports, there is not much left but to rule it out altogether. The States are the ones who make the detailled rules about it, they already, for instance can make rules about relative physical strength, for instance or about post-pubescent transitionals.

Certain states have passed laws pertaining to it, yes...but where is national discourse at on the subject?

For instance, if I were to talk to someone on the farther left-hand side of the spectrum, would they say that their ideal candidates would be for or against passing laws at a federal level that override the red-state laws that have restricted certain aspects with regards to this conversation?


While it would appear, the overall window has shifted on the subject across the board:

(showing that the tide is turning)

Given that 47% of Democrats are still suggesting that it should be allowed, we're not just talking about a "fringe few" people here.

But now that the people who support the concept among democrats has dropped from 55% down to 47%, it's now much closer to an even split, which then makes it much more possible to be on "the wrong side of that issue" now in ways that can lose a democratic candidate some needed support if the candidate themselves has the same position on the issue in 2023 that they had in 2021.

If just a smidge under half of democrats supports it now, and the most vocal portion of that base are saying "anyone who opposes this is a transphobic bigot" (whilst holding a Harris Walz sign), they could be potentially alienating some of that 48%.

The republicans have a much easier time traversing that particular issue, as their position has grown in support across all 3 categories. 93% of their own base, and 67% of independents are in alignment on it. So it was pretty clear which way they needed to go on it.

For Democrats, the choice was much tougher. "Do we tick off the 47% and some of the undecideds? or do we tick off the 48% and some of the independents?



So in addition to what I mentioned earlier (about how it's terribly strategy to make the other party's slippery slope argument come true), I guess we can add another major blunder to the list of ones to avoid.

Which is, "don't go all in on an ideological position for which your own party only has a 52-48 majority opinion among the ranks" (because that's well within the window that can flip the other way pretty quickly)

I think that's a mistake that republicans made on abortion, they didn't pay for it at the polls, but it still highlighted the error. When only 54% of their own party wanted strict limits on it, that wasn't a strong enough majority among their ranks to go "all in". (as we saw red states passing pro-choice ballot measures in response)

Republicans were only saved from the consequences of that by the fact that states just handled it themselves and took the issue off the table for a lot of people, had they not, that likely could've been the winning issue for Harris.

 

[Hazelelponi]

forward 10 years, seems like just about all of those things (that they labelled as slippery slope and strawmen when concerns were raised) have largely come to fruition.

I can go back to statements I was saying by 2012, that they didn't want borders at all.

People laughed and called it conspiracy theory, but when they were arguing against every single solution wide open borders is what you get.

By 2016 they were making moves towards open borders, and it was one of the things we stopped with Trump's 2016 presidency.

But no one believed us, kept saying no, that's not really what they had in mind.

To my mind, they have long been telling us exactly what they want to do, but if you call them out on it they deny deny deny.

All of our conspiracy theories are coming true in real time. All of them.

And they aren't good for any American.