The Slippery Slope "Fallacy"

In my opinion, the slippery slope fallacy, or as I will refer to it going forward, the slippery slope "fallacy", is not a valid fallacy to point out. Based on Wikipedia, there are two basic types of slippery slopes: a casual chain and a decision-making chain [1].

The "fallacy" in the causal chain is that it is either improbable that the chain of reasoning will actually occur, and/or that one of the implications/causation links is false. The in the former case, that shouldn't immediately invalidate the reasoning. Consider some chain of reasoning with a .1% chance of occurring. If the stakes were the future of humanity, then wouldn't it be worth it to consider the argument? Admittedly, a relatively-low probability event caused by something does have the possibility of being trivial in impact, it being low-probability in nature shouldn't immediately eliminate it as an argument. In the latter case, it is just bad reasoning. If one claims that a causes b but it is well-founded that a doesn't cause b, then this doesn't seem to be a slippery slope (because there isn't really a slope) yet can still be classified as one under the latter definition. Thus the bad causation definition and improbability definitions uses of the slippery slope "fallacy" fail.

The premise of the decision-making chain is that if person x accepted that a implies b, but then accepts c implies d. This reasoning is perfectly sound. Say that person x bases their knowledge of a imply b on some evidence y. Then if y also supports c imply d, then in order for person x to accept evidence y, they must accept c imply d unless they have evidence otherwise. That is just simple modus pons (the idea that if something implies another thing, and that something is true, then the another thing must be as well). Furthermore, thought experiments involving rational decision-making and being "forced" to accept an argument are considered in concepts like the prisoners' dilemma and Newcomb's paradox without any labelling as a slippery slope (asaik). See [2] and [3] for an explanation of these.

These flaws with the slippery slope "fallacy" suggest that this is more used as a fallacy fallacy (the fallacy in which your argumentative "opponent" uses a fallacy, what they are trying to show must be necessarily false - absurd as their use of a fallacy doesn't affect whether what they are trying to support is actually true or not). Many, if not all, of the use cases of the slippery slope "fallacy" are used can simply be classified as a different error. Often times, it is just an appeal to emotion fallacy (such as fearmongering or the jocular proof by intimidation [4]) or just a disagreement on what is too improbable and how to value them (to calculate a sort of expected value). There is also probably some external incentive to continue the use of the slippery slope fallacy, as there seem to be many books on fallacies and how to combat them presented in a fun way (such as [5], the top result when searching for "fallacy" on amazon). Thus losing these fallacies makes the book less feasible and the profit gains less. I also just really hate these kinds of books.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox
[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofbyintimidation
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Detective-Thirty-Eight-Recognize-Reasoning/dp/097453157X