I noticed that slippery slope fallacy is used to defend status quo. Like "If we legalize soft drugs, then it will significantly increase probability that we will legalize hard drugs too in the future. So let's keep soft drugs banned".

It occurred to me that we can spin something similar in order to ATTACK status quo. Like, "Currently alchohol is legal. Let's ban it. If we ban it, then it will significantly decrease probability that we will legalize soft drugs in the future, which consequently will significantly decrease probability that we will legalize hard drugs in the future".

Is it still slippery slope fallacy or something else?

  • 1
    It depends on how narrowly one interprets the label, which is typically a very loose affair with informal fallacies. Slippery slope argues that "a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect". The word "slippery" suggests the negative connotation. In your case the "significant effect" is instead positive, so people may want to call it instead "reverse slippery slope" or "sticky slope", as Schraub suggested.
    – Conifold
    Mar 25, 2021 at 20:10

1 Answer 1


I think you're referring to the Status-quo bias. Look up what Thaler and Kahneman write about this. For instance: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch,and Richard H. Thaler

  • I don't. I presented an argument and biases aren't arguments. Sep 7, 2021 at 13:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .