The Slippery Slope Argument in Legal Context

Is the typical slippery slope argument in legal context substantially different than a slippery slope argument that we might hear elsewhere from a politician, from someone in education, healthcare, et cetera? So here's what I would suggest again, trying to use some contemporary discourse that we're thinking about in politics. The fight over teaching critical race theory is kind of a version of slippery slope that it's non-legal in so far as it descends really quickly into what I just feels like feelings ball to me. Those feel like slippery slope arguments that are not so much predicated on if legal outcome X, then legal outcome Y, but just like we're now just talking about feelings. They don't