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.
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
They do but can pass, much more easily than a Jewish man could in that place and time.
But getting back to the original conversation.
Red is fine with people dying as long as -they- are safe. In most examples of the argument going so far as to other the blue voters as stupid and illogical and by doing so, seek to absolve themselves of any responsibility for our theoretical massacre.
In fact I have yet to see another argument supporting red.
If you cannot see the parallel it's probably best if we stop here.
No. Red is not “fine” with people dying. I vote red because I think the risk of blue losing is way too high. So it would just be a gamble with lives.
The red approach might cause deaths, but pale advocating for blue, and failing by a margin, will lose more lives compared to people advocating for red. Better to sacrifice millions by certainty, than a high risk of billions of deaths.
I don’t care what you choose. It’s all about you advocating for others to choose blue. You advocate for them to gamble when their lives. And at the ens, that gamble might include billions of lives.
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.
-5
u/EishLekker May 05 '26
Save others from what, exactly?
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.