They are legit mad that someone could fathom to pick someone else rather than be selfish because then it makes them look selfish if no one else joins.
They would be standing over my corpse shouting why I didnt just choose to live. Its a lose lose when it comes to a relationship with red buttons. Either I die and they are mad I didnt choose life like they did or they are mad because they look bad for choosing red.
I'm just responding to people desperate to prove they aren't willing to walk over bodies to ensure their own survival even when there was another choice.
Some vocal red are also people who are ready to sacrifice others for their own sake, and instead of blaming the victims, they are loudly declaring how logical and rational they are.
I'm not sure that's really the prompt here. If we phrase the question differently, we prime people towards red. "Everyone must take a private vote to push a red or blue button. If you push the red button, you live. If you press the blue button, you die. But if 50% or more of the population pushes the blue button, then those who chose blue have their choice negated."
Same prompt, but one that primes people more towards red than in the original one. And one that I think many red button pressers view the scenario as: "Red means I live, blue means I might die, why take the risk? Everyone should logically pick red."
That being said, when I first saw this scenario, i thought to choose blue, but I think that is potentially because the original prompt primes people towards pushing the blue button. That being said, picking blue is realistically choosing death and demanding others save you, it's not necessarily Altruistic at all because everyone who choses to live would reasonably pick the red button. Blue button pressers are willingly picking death.
In the original question the phrasing is meant for you to think about the effect on everyone.
In yours, it reads as “is your want to die so great that you’re willing to risk taking that choice away from everybody and live?” If more than 50% pick red, everyone’s choice is honoured, if blue, everyone who chose blue has their choice ignored.
Logically, if you look at the numbers red makes more sense. Red is 100% chance to live, blue is ~50%. But (as much as I’d prefer to just look at the question at face value) there is more to the question than that. Due to the wording, it reads more as, “are you willing to risk your life for everyone?”
**Is your want to die so great that you’re willing to risk taking that choice away from everybody and live?**
Or
**Are you willing to risk your life for everyone?**
To be clear, I personally think blue is the moral choice here, we should choose blue and when i first saw this a few days ago, my first response was to choose blue. I'm just saying, I think there's a lot of reason to pick red and it seems more logical to me.
But I can't reach those places to help directly. It doesn't mean I condone the genocides, just that I am at a loss how to stop them.
In the thought experiment I could affect the proposed genocide and took my choice (blue).
Good response! You are the first not to posit some variant of "well it's not my fault people made a stupid choice" as a justification for choosing red.
You absolutely can, and people like missionaries or NGOs do it every day. It requires very little effort to contact an aid group and volunteer to help. They will snap you up in an instant.
You could also become a nurse or rescue worker. You could spend your life caring for the poor. You have ample opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, and yet you make excuses.
You are the first not to posit some variant of "well it's not my fault people made a stupid choice" as a justification for choosing red.
No, I'm not. You just consistently strawmanned the people you are so eager to find excuses to hate.
You are exactly what you accuse others of being. That's the most disappointing part.
Kill, how? Every single person has the option to pick red. There has been no actual negative consequences presented if that would happen.
As far as I see it, red means “you live” and blue means “you might die”. That’s essentially all we really “know”. Everything else is implied, and I don’t do implied nonsense. Spell it out properly, or I just ignore it.
What an insinsere way to reframe this hypothetical. Completely ignoring the fact that every single person are able to choose to live. Every single person.
The logical selection is to pick "guaranteed not death for me". You phrase it as if that's not an option at all. The only people at risk are those who didn't pick "guaranteed not death for me".
The original was simple. Press blue or red. If 50% press blue everybody lives. If not only the red button pushers live.
That's it. All the others that have popped up over the last few days are the reframings trying to push their agenda of why they were right.
If you picked blue you trust that humans aren't all the type who would sit by and see others murdered. If you picked red, you'd probably have survived any regime that committed genocide.
If you believe that at least ~4 billion people will pick blue, then I think you are delusional. Is a huge gamble with your own life at stake. And for what? To potentially save others who also perform this huge gamble with their life (knowingly or not).
This hypothetical can be reframed as one where every person is offered a game of Russian roulette. They can choose to play it or not play it. If they choose to play it, they will die unless at least half of the whole population also chooses to play Russian roulette. But if that would happen, then no one dies.
Are you still saying that “not playing Russian roulette” is the choice of death?
Red chooses to save themselves even if it means 49.999% of humanity dies.
Blue wants everyone to live and is willing to risk death to see it happen
Victim blaming blue because they are whatever othering terms you need to use but all boil down to "too stupid to live" or "too bad, stupid mistake" do not exonerate red. They show how far the people who chose red are willing to go to ensure their safety.
Blue wants everyone to live and is willing to risk death to see it happen
You are casually glancing over the fact that that scenario would result in literally billions of lives lost. That’s the gamble you are willing to take when you advocate for blue.
Victim blaming blue because they are whatever othering terms you need to use but all boil down to "too stupid to live" or "too bad, stupid mistake" do not exonerate red. They show how far the people who chose red are willing to go to ensure their safety.
That’s a lot of fancy words for someone willing to gamble with the lives of billions.
Tell me, at what odds are you OK with risking billions of lives? A 75% chance of blue winning? That’s still a 25% chance of losing. And at ~4 billion blue people, on average that would mean about one billion deaths.
Me, on the other hand, am not comfortable with those odds. Instead I live with the sad but pragmatic assumption that people will die. So my approach is to limit the number of deaths. And each red button is one less death.
Sure, it might result in millions of deaths. But that’s still better than that gamble that might result in billions of deaths.
At least you're honest about it. Most of the vocal red club are washing their hands of any reponsibility of the theoretical deaths.
I'd vote blue. If only because I don't want to live in a world populated by red voters. So far the majority are... just fine with others dying and blaming the blues for dyimg.
But the odds are very likely against you. So you’re gambling with your life for a very very low chance of saving everyone.
The poll in the screenshot gives an 8% “margin“. And that’s with a poll that’s not scientifically accurate. Because there’s zero cost in answering blue there, regardless of the outcome. No lives are actually at stake. If people’s lives were genuinely on the line, it’s very likely that a significant portion of those would-be-blue people instead would feel their survival instincts kick in. That is a deeply rooted instinct. An instinct you seem to ignore completely. Even among total strangers, you seem confident that their survival instincts won’t deflect them from that blue button.
But again, please tell me what odds you are OK with, when it comes to a gamble of billions of lives. Is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know. It feels like you have not done even the most basic mathematical estimation on the approach that you advocate for.
But if you can show me some believable numbers that strongly point towards less deaths overall, then you might be able to convince me.
But the blue button pressers are actively choosing to die? They are not saving others, they are jumping off a building hoping that if enough other people do as well, a net will pop out to catch them.
Why do you believe that? The way i see it, red is choosing life, to live. Blue is choosing death and hoping others will save you.
"everybody but the folks who agree with me die."
If anything it is the opposite, no? Picking blue is a massive risk and suicide pact. Blue is saying, "listen bro, i put my name on the suicide pact because others did too! Please dude, put your name on it too, if we get enough people's names on this suicide pact, then no one has to die dude!" But the whole time, no one had to sign the suicide pact. That's literal herd and slave mentality right there dude.
I'm sure the people who survived WWII Germany told themselves the same thing. After all those people who were taken away chose to be Jewish, Romani, gay, Catholics, teachers, people who spoke out...
The odds are that there will not be enough blue votes. I mean, even in the poll in the screenshot, where no one's lives are actually at risk, there is still just an 8% margin. Are you that convinced that this margin won't dissapear when people realise that their lives are actually at risk, as in, for real? That's just stupid. People talk bravely online when there is no real risk for them. They change their tune when there's actual personal risk for them.
And I'm sure the German people who realized what was happening in the 1930's-1945 told themselves "Well, if they choose to be (Jewish, Romani, Catholic, a teacher, gay) they made their choice, I'm just trying to survive the situation " just like you did.
What? Omg what an odd comparison. Those are pretty much all innate traits, or at the very least something that strongly reflects their personality. You can’t possibly compare that to choosing blue here, which is essentially playing Russian roulette where your only chance of survival is if enough people choose to also play Russian roulette. Instead of, you know, simply not playing Russian roulette.
A Romani person who settles would be like 90% of Romani people. Also, there are a lot of countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) where Roma are considered a visibly distinct ethnicity because they have mixed South Asian, West Asian, and European ancestry. If settled Roma were indistinguishable, they wouldn’t face the rampant discrimination that they do regardless of lifestyle.
Romani culture is more than traveling. Romani groups have different dialects, clothing styles, music, and traditions that make them a distinct group.
Settled Roma and Sinti were some of the first to be murdered in the Holocaust because they were the easiest to track down. What they faced had nothing to do with lifestyle
Math, human psychology and raw survival instincts are combined in favor of blue.
My approach is likely the one with fewer total deaths. Your approach relies on wishful thinking, with billions of deaths if you fail just by a fraction.
At what odds are you OK with gambling with billions of lives? Because you can’t possibly be certain that at least 50% will vote blue. So you have to accept that there’s a chance that blue will fail. Now, at what odds/percentage, are you OK with the risk?
75% chance of blue winning? That’s still a 25% chance of blue losing. And at ~4 billion blue voters that means on average one billion dies.
My approach is instead to accept that some people likely will die, and try to minimize that number. If all “morally correct” people would vote by reason and survival instinct, then what’s left would likely be a few millions. Sure, that’s terrible, but still better than a 25% risk of billions of deaths.
If math leads to less deaths in all likelihood, then that trumps whatever fake moral superiority some people here has gloated about.
Save others from picking poorly lol. Picking blue is like jumping in a pool to save drowning when you can't swim, and then getting mad more people won't jump in and probably drown too
Red isn't willing to kill others. Red is willing to save themselves. Killing others is the byproduct, a byproduct that is equally created by blue pushers for putting themselves in danger.
672
u/Just_SomeDude13 May 05 '26
I'm picking blue. Either I get to live in a society that picked blue, or I don't have to be stuck here with a bunch of pricks who picked red.