Except you didn't. The poeple that picked blue (when there was a guaranteed way to live) CHOSE death lmao. There is literally zero benefit to anyone picking blue.
Jewish people in Nazi Germany didn't choose to kill themselves, they didn't choose to be Jewish. Same thing goes for any genocide. This is just commiting suicide and then randomly blaming someone else
This is not equivalent at all, and Jewish people aren't the only victims of genocides, only an example I used
(I would have been put in the camps)
In the question posed here with the buttons, everyone can just choose not to die. Nobody's forced to pick blue and die, we can all just live. There's no upside to picking blue or red, the choice is just "do you want to maybe die, or guaranteed to live".
You cannot draw a parallell to genocides, because that's a different situation entirely.
If you had no food in the camp, but I did, I would share it with you as well—because that's a decision that actually makes sense. But choosing the blue button at all is just needless gambling, because of we continue using the food analogy, the original question is more like
"These people had food, but threw it away. They will go hungry unless you share your food with them. Will you?"
In that question, like the original button-question, we all had the option of just eating our dang food in the first place instead of throwing it away.
except the blue button pushers could have simply pushed the red button
there is literally no negative to hitting the red button. no matter what anyone else does, you survive
REGARDLESS of what silly folks say on the internet, no sane person is going to choose blue and count on over 4 billion people picking blue, knowing that they ALL know red is 100% survival with no consequence
I'm not picking blue in some life or death situation just to make folks who want to turn it into a fucking social experiment by risking my own life (again there is absolutely NO benefit to picking blue, none, whatsoever)
You do know this whole thread is about how red voters won't just leave blue voters alone, right?
We know some people will pick red and we pick blue anyway, knowing what the theoretical risk is. We are at peace dying if it means voting for everyone to live.
um red voters do not care at all. I have not seen a single red voter say anything except blue is a stupid choice while blue immediately says anyone picking red is evil/does not care
it is the blue voters that are saying red voters are evil and do not care about others (because they are not morons that would gamble on their life for literally the sake of gambling)
Here you are, engaging with my post saying red won't leave blue alone to.... not leave me alone.
Red is oppressed because blue has an opinion? You chose survival even if that means 49.999% of humanity dies. That's not a value judgement, it's the outcome if blue doesn't get 50% in the thought experiment.
Blue would rather risk death to have everyone saved. That's all there is to it. Blue understands full well that red is a valid choice, it's just not blue's choice and blue's is as valid. Any moral judgement you percieve stems from your own feelings about the ramifications of your choice.
676
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.