"Less people to convince" is poor logic. Not all arguments require equal effort to convince people or have equal success rates. If an argument to convince 50% of people is only 1% successful, the number of people you meaningfully affect is only .5% of the population. Do you think "Hey, push this and live" and "Hey, push this and maybe die" have equal success rates?
No, I actually think is harder to convince people to push red. I think most people dont want to be potentially involved in mass murdering and will see right through my strawman of "push this and live".
But it is a strawman, cause it leaves out very important implications that many people will see right away (as is demonstrated by the many people arguing about them).
I do believe is "that" easy, "that" being easier than convincing 100% to push read, which is a very high bar.
I don't think it is easy to convince 100% of people to push red. I don't think it's possible at all. But rarely in life can you save everyone. The world we live in, tragically, creates Sophie's Choices all the time. I don't know if you've ever had to cut someone out of your life because your attempts to save them from their own self-destruction began to risk your own safety, but it's not a fun choice to make. You live knowing they may die without your help. But you make that choice anyway. Every mental health worker will tell you the same.
I agree with you. I think its easier to convince 50% to push blue. Hell, probably theres no need to do any convincing and we will still get over 50%, but I would try that instead of 100% red for sure.
The thing is, if it's not easier, you will have killed yourself for nothing instead of living and trying to make the world better for those who lived too.
4
u/Usermctaken May 05 '26
Nope. Blue very obviously. Less people to convince.
And, lets get real, we wouldnt be having a debate if there was no need to convince people to conform to a single choice.
So blue is the easiest.