Schelling fences on slippery slopes - LessWrong
Slippery slopes are themselves a slippery concept. Imagine trying to explain them to an alien: "Well, we right-thinking people are quite sure that the Holocaust happened, so banning Holocaust denial would shut up some crackpots and improve the discourse. But it's one step on the road to things like banning unpopular political positions or religions, and we right-thinking people oppose that, so we won't ban Holocaust denial." And the alien might well respond: "But you could just ban Holocaust denial, but not ban unpopular political positions or religions. Then you right-thinking people get the thing you want, but not the thing you don't want." This post is about some of the replies you might give the alien. Abandoning the Power of Choice This is the boring one without any philosophical insight that gets mentioned only for completeness' sake. In this reply, giving up a certain point risks losing the ability to decide whether or not to give up other points. For example, if people gave up the right to privacy and allowed the government to monitor all phone calls, online communications, and public places, then if someone launched a military coup, it would be very difficult to resist them because there would be no way to secretly organize a rebellion. This is also brought up in arguments about gun control a lot. I'm not sure this is properly thought of as a slippery slope argument at all. It seems to be a more straightforward "Don't give up useful tools for fighting tyranny" argument. The Legend of Murder-Gandhi Previously on Less Wrong's The Adventures of Murder-Gandhi: Gandhi is offered a pill that will turn him into an unstoppable murderer. He refuses to take it, because in his current incarnation as a pacifist, he doesn't want others to die, and he knows that would be a consequence of taking the pill. Even if we offered him $1 million to take the pill, his abhorrence of violence would lead him to refuse. But suppose we offered Gandhi $1 million to take a di
x Schelling fences on slippery slopes — LessWrong Argument and Analysis Value Drift Game Theory Rationality Frontpage 659 Schelling fences on slippery slopes by Scott Alexander 16th Mar 2012 7 min read 250 659 Slippery slopes are themselves a slippery concept. Imagine trying to explain them to an alien: "Well, we right-thinking people are quite sure that the Holocaust happened, so banning Holocaust denial would shut up some crackpots and improve the discourse. But it's one step on the road to things like banning unpopular political positions or religions, and we right-thinking people oppose th
Explore this link on the map →saved by
related reading
- Schelling fences on slippery slopes — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Galaxy brain resistancevitalik.eth.limo
- Taboo Your Words — LessWronglesswrong.com
- What You Can't Saypaulgraham.com
- Power Lies Trembling: a three-book review — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Chesterton’s Fence: A Lesson in Thinkingfs.blog
- Leave a Line of Retreat — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Do not conquer what you cannot defend — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Shtetl-Optimized >> Blog Archive >> The mini-singularityscottaaronson.blog
- Can Things Be Both Popular And Silenced? | Slate Star Codexslatestarcodex.com
- Applause Lights — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Monthly Roundup #40: March 2026 - by Zvi Mowshowitzthezvi.substack.com