 After years of being absent from YouTube, Leafy came back and within months he was banned from the website. Many people are speculating that his ban was from his multiple videos on Pokemon and although Leafy was memeing on Ethan Klein from H3H3 Productions, Ethan may have been right that Leafy wouldn't last on the platform the way it currently is. There's a lot of unproven speculation that Ethan or Pokemon had something to do but that's not what we're going to be discussing in this video. Leafy's ban has started a debate within the YouTube commentary community and many people are divided. On one side you have commentary channels like Scarce and others saying that this is bad for all creators. On the other side, Leon Lush, another big commentary channel, released a video taking the opposing viewpoint. In Scarce's tweet he said the following, Even if you weren't a fan of his videos, Leafy's termination is very, very concerning. Leafy being terminated now means any of us could be next. Another commentary creator named Optimus had a similar argument that said, Not sure how much longer I'll be on YouTube. Gotta take the time to make sure you're enjoying it as it happens and trust me, I'm doing my best. You see situations like Leafy and realize how much the commentary community has been messed with all year. It won't be long folks. But in Leon Lush's video he argued that he doesn't believe this is the case and as a commentary channel himself he has quite a bit of skin in the game. Maybe just don't make like six videos in a week about the same chick. Talking about her looks like a bunch, you know what I'm saying? Like I'm not trying to defend Pokemon. I don't know her personally. I don't really even know the situation that well. I'm sure she's she made an apology video recently for handling some situations poorly. And certainly I am fully fully in support of criticism and being able to talk about other people on the internet because that's what I do for my living. But I do think there's a point. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. In our last video we debunked QAnon COVID conspiracies. So I thought that right now would be the perfect time to expand upon the slippery slope logical fallacy. Although when we typically hear the word argument we think of two people bickering at one another. But the reality is, is that arguments are just two sides with opposing views. Each argument has the potential to persuade audiences. So it's important that we are aware of what separates a good from a bad argument. Oftentimes logical fallacies are used to try and strengthen an argument, but when you put them under the microscope it doesn't actually prove a person's point. Those in QAnon use the slippery slope fallacy all the time. They regularly argue that we shouldn't have to wear masks. As we discussed in the previous video, they argue that this is a means of control. They say that mandating that we wear masks can lead to more government control. They'd have you believe that wearing the mask today to slow down a global pandemic will lead to a secret service member moving into your house and telling you what you can and can't watch on TV. Conservatives often use the slippery slope logical fallacy when it comes to debates around gun rights and abortion laws. So although the scarce and leon debate may just seem like silly internet drama about Leafy, this is a time for us to sharpen our critical thinking skills because logical fallacies can pop up anywhere. In this video, we're going to start by dissecting the slippery slope logical fallacy and learn why it's not a valid tool for critical thinkers in a debate. Then we're going to discuss how to counter the slippery slope logical fallacy in an argument as well as ways to discuss the slippery slope without being irrational. But before we get started, if you're new to the Rewired Soul, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. Here we practice critical thinking and skepticism to improve our emotional intelligence and overall well-being. This specific fallacy builds off the idea of cause and effect. If A, then B. Many fallacies are hard to spot because they have a slight essence of a logical argument. We can point to many examples of cause and effect. For example, granted there are no flaws with the machinery, if I flip this light switch, then the light will turn on. And if I turn this door knob, then the door will open. But the slippery slope logical fallacy takes this to an extreme with no provable evidence. The slippery slope argument says, if A, then B. And if B, then C. And if C, then Z. This is the argument of an alarmist. And the goal is to incite the powerful emotion of fear into those who hear the argument. Due to the fact that the argument is on a shaky foundation, the person hopes that they'll persuade people by giving them a dose of fear. In the context of a leafy ban, commentary channels like scarce are saying that if leafy can get banned, then no commentary channel is safe. And if no commentary channel is safe, then this impedes on our freedom of speech and the freedom of press. And if no commentary channels are safe, then the platform will turn into nothing but family vlogs, prank channels, and slime challenges. Leon Lush did a good job backing his argument by pointing out the updated terms of services by YouTube and making it very clear that they're going to draw some lines. YouTube's anti-harassment policy, like beefed up last year, and I quote, The policy now bans target harassment campaigns. The company told me that harassment on YouTube often doesn't come down to a single insult. It said it's a sustained effort over many videos. Under the new policy, YouTube will now take a more holistic view of what a creator is saying on the channel, even if individual videos don't necessarily cross the line. If they still contribute to the persecution of another person or creator, they're eligible for removal. So you could argue the semantics over what Leafy said in his videos. Was he really saying things that were harassing? I haven't watched probably over 90% of it. I popped in on one of them. I think he does talk about her looks in one of them though, but even if he's like, you know what I'm saying, this policy right here is grounds for removal because there's no question that Leafy, making five or six videos on her caused her to get harassed. And again, don't forget that Leon Lush is a commentary channel and this is his primary source of income. Leon is a husband and a father. So if he felt the scarcest argument held any weight, he'd definitely speak up. The premise of this argument is that we need freedom of the press to keep those in power accountable, but they have no evidence that Leafy's ban could take us down this path. If you remember from our conversation about conservative morals, they often rely on this logic because they're traditional lists and believe that the 200 year old constitution was never meant to be changed. But this is absurd because written at the same time was the Federalist Papers, which discuss how the constitution will need to be updated over time. Neglecting the Federalist Papers, conservatives use the slippery slope fallacy to argue against common sense gun laws and abortion rights. Following the slippery slope fallacy formula of if A, then B, and if B, then Z, conservatives will argue that any common sense gun laws will lead to abolishing gun rights as a whole. They argue that universal background checks and not selling guns to people with a history of violence will then lead to nobody in the country being allowed to own a gun. Although liberals will say that this is not what they want, conservatives use the slippery slope logical fallacy to say that this is where it will lead. They do the same thing with abortion laws. Conservatives will try and have you believe that a woman's right to choose will lead to a culture where murder is tolerated. Even if you get a pro-lifer to admit that a first term fetus is nowhere near human consciousness, they'll say it's a slippery slope. Pro-lifers will argue that if we allow abortion early on, then we'll eventually allow late term abortions. And if we allow late term abortions, we might as well allow the murder of innocent toddlers. This is a ridiculous argument, especially because many pro-lifers are also fans of the military industrial complex, which kills thousands of innocent children in other countries. But we don't have time to dive into that in this video. So if scarce and other commentary channels are going to use flawed arguments by turning to the slippery slope fallacy, how do we combat it to have better conversations? I personally don't know if Leon Lush took a speech in debate class, but he ran a masterclass on how to debunk the slippery slope logical fallacy. When someone presents you with the slippery slope logical fallacy, simply ask them to connect those dots because the problem with this argument is that there's no evidence that point B will lead to point Z. When you have a person attempt to make these connections, it begins to sound a little bit more irrational. Sometimes in a one on one debate, you'll persuade your opponent to see the flaws in their argument, but not always. But in a world where we're all on social media, the goal of your argument may be to persuade the audience and not the person that you're debating. This is why it's great that Leon Lush took the time to put this in a video because he's showing a massive audience the flaws in the slippery slope argument. If I were to coach someone in a debate against someone like scarce or optimist, I'd have them ask the opponent to present the evidence that something like this could happen where all commentary channels could get banned. On the side of debunking this fallacy, we have plenty of evidence that this slope isn't nearly as slippery as people want you to believe, and we have plenty of examples too. One year ago, the YouTuber Alfie Dayes interviewed YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki for his channel. During his hour-long interview, Alfie brought up the topic of bullying and harassment. Susan then discussed how they're constantly having conversations about what is legitimate criticism and what constitutes bullying and harassment. After this interview, many people in the commentary community did exactly what they're doing right now saying that they're all in danger. Yet it's been a year and 99% of them still have channels. A few months later, in December, YouTube updated its anti-bullying and harassment policies. Not long after that, iDubb's content cop about Alfie was taken down. Again, the commentary community turned into chicken little saying that the sky was falling, but again, not much change for a majority of them. But it's been nine months since that happened, and this is the first major action we've seen YouTube take in the realm of anti-bullying and harassment. Now, some of you may argue that this is proof of the slippery slope, but that's completely irrational. All we have is proof that YouTube is enforcing a rule that they implemented nine months ago. Just like when certain businesses made mass mandatory and started asking people to leave their establishments, it was merely enforcement of a rule. So when someone is trying to use the slippery slope logical fallacy against you, ask them to lay out the line of reasoning and feel free to bring up the fact that they're using this fallacy. In some cases, they may be able to prove their point in a rational way. Maybe you assume it was the slippery slope fallacy, but they were just connecting A to B and have evidence rather than taking B to Z. Someone who I think does a good job of this is Kyle Kalinsky from Secular Talk. Although Kyle is one of the most progressive voices out there, he believes that conservatives deserve the right to free speech. When Alex Jones was banned from the platform, Kyle argued that this was bad for everyone. Now, some would say that Kyle is using the slippery slope logical fallacy, but when we put his argument under the microscope, it holds up. He explains how the only allegiance social media companies have is to the almighty dollar. Kyle argues that social media companies need to do a better job being transparent when it comes to how certain conspiracy videos violate the terms of service because liberals are at risk too. For example, conservatives argue that there are many liberal conspiracy theorists even though there's proof. Kyle is a liberal who has personally had videos censored for simply reporting the news about global wars because some call them conspiracies even though there is evidence. Kyle's argument isn't that de-platforming Alex Jones means that all commentary and news channels will be the platform. He argues that liberals shouldn't celebrate too much thinking that they're invincible when it comes to this censorship. Kyle avoids the slippery slope fallacy by giving evidence of A to B without jumping to Z. Personally, I'm a huge believer in freedom of speech. I also believe that even though there are people like Leafy who aren't serving some greater moral good, there are plenty of channels trying to raise awareness while also poking fun. Leon Lush, Danny Gonzalez, Jarvis Johnson, and others are completely different than Leafy. Some have even said that Leafy is no different than shows like Last Week Tonight or The Daily Show, but this is a false equivalence. Whereas these creators and show hosts have a moral compass, Leafy doesn't mind just sitting back and watching the world burn. All right, everybody. Thank you once again for making it all the way through this video essay. I hope you enjoyed it. I thought this was going to be a good way to tie in what we talked about in the last video about the QAnon COVID conspiracies and speaking of some logical fallacies, especially the slippery slope that is used so much. If you want, leave a comment down below of an example of a slippery slope that you've heard where you're like, hmm, I don't see it getting that bad. But anyways, as always, I have linked some books down in the description. I always link books. I love me some books. So there's some books in there about logical fallacies, about arguments. I really opened up my eyes to what an argument is in more of the context of a debate. And it helps me have better conversations and kind of see the other side and all those things before I just go out all willy-nilly. Because like I said, a lot of this stuff that we're doing and trying to practice with critical thinking is to improve our own emotional intelligence. Because when we get heated or passionate about something, our rationality just flies out the window. You know what I mean? So anyways, if you want, check out some of the books down below. But anyways, that's all I got for this video. If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up if you're new. Make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. And a huge, huge thank you to everybody supporting the channel over on Patreon. You are all amazing. And a huge thank you to everybody else who supports the channel by buying Rewire Soul Merch or my books from the RewireSoul.com. And as I was recording the out trail, Wyatt came over and started roping up on my leg. So Wyatt says bye too and make sure you subscribe.