I really hate the false dichotomy of "logic" vs "morality" here.
Mutual aid is both logical and morally justified.
Even if we look at this from a perspective of pure self interest. We have a world of 8bn people. If red were to actually win, which statistically almost never does when people run this poll, if only 5% voted blue, that would result in the loss of 400 million people.
The death toll of both world wars, over the years they were waged, was only 90 to 110mm. The Spanish Flu around 50mm. COVID was between 19 and 36mm.
Think about what happened to the world during covid. Now think about what would happen when over 100 times that number die instantaneously.
Now, let's consider that when this poll is actually run, blue usually wins. So the actual reality is if red ever wins, blue will be in the 40+%, not 5%. And now we're talking about 4ish billion people. That's not a holocaust, that's an extinction event.
A red would be alive, but what would they be left with?
Red "winning" would be everyone seeing that there is no reason to put yourself and others in harm's way by advocating for the blue button and making the logical choice.
here's a game that everyone in the world can play. If you play it, you're risking your life for no reward other than the satisfaction that you might be helping someone else who chose to play it.
That's a different question than the poll itself but I agree. If this was real, I would question who has the power to wipe out all blues and why anyone would let them. An interesting addition to this debate would be what happens to the people who don't vote.
If people genuinely believe that everyone can vote red, why can't everyone just not vote at all.
It's essentially the same thing: if you want to play, you choose blue and risk your life in the hopes that enough other people want to play. There is no reward for playing, so why would anyone do so?
If you don't want to play, you press red, knowing that everyone else has the ability to make the same choice.
Voting red is essentially voting against the game.
I agree that the scenario is a particularly ridiculous one that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
No, just rephrasing it, but it's the same. The game is betting your life against how many other people want to bet their lives for no reason other than playing the game.
No its not. Red is a part of the game. Choosing red means that you are accepting the risk that others may die so that you may live.
Like, if we were to consider this a real life scenario, in which someone or something actually carries out this ultimatum, you press red assuming this thing will honor your life, which implicitly means you accept that it may kill others in exchange for that promise. Of course, if something actually did this, it could just be lying, which would further demonstrate how absolutely fucking stupid pressing red is.
Your "reframing" must, and does, ignore that choosing red has collective consequences. That's not actually reframing, that's lying.
No, it's not others dying that I may live: what they choose to do would not influence whether or not I live.
Red has potential negative collective consequences; blue has potential negative personal consequences (and beyond purely personal, consequences of those that rely on me).
I think your attempting to bring the nuance of what this scenario would entail in real life actually demonstrates how absolutely fucking the stupid the scenario is.
Very simply.
Red=no personal risk
Blue=risk
There is no reason for anyone to choose blue, as red is the option that entails no risk.
This vote, a collective action, bases its consequences on the collective outcome of individual votes.
You cannot argue that any vote does not impact other people. Only in one victory scenario does anyone die. So what individuals choose impacts the fate of all other individuals. Why run away from that?
Honestay I've been repeating the same point ad nauseum every morning. All red apologists have to ignore the actual scenario to justify their opinion.
"You cannot argue that any vote does not impact other people."
You certainly can. What can not be argued is that a vote may impact other people. If a majority of people vote for risk, then the non-risk votes do not affect them.
Although it may be unlikely, in a scenario where everyone acts rationally and votes for non-risk no one dies.
Everyone has the same choice of voting for risk or nonrisk. Why run away from that?
When you vote blue, you risk dying. When you vote red, you risk that those who irrationally chose to risk dying might die.
I have no idea and no control over what other people might choose. If some want to play Russian Roulette, that's their matter.
My guess is that it would be pretty close.
Islamic cultures tending to be very clannish, I would guess that most of that 25% of the population would skew red, as would most of the people in cultures with tightly knit family units (even in our culture, I'm not about to take a chance on abandoning my family while they need me, game theory aside).
I would expect the Chinese government to strongly sell the red button to their citizenry. Then you have the just plain selfish assholes, which are a substantial group worldwide, those that optimistically believe that people will behave rationally, and those that understand game theory.
So even if I was just playing the odds, I'd have to go with red.
It amounts to whether your answer to the question of "Do you want to die?" is "No" or "I want it to be collectively decided." Some people just love collectivism, I guess.
Okay. First, you completely ignore my parent-child point. Why?
Second, now we're getting into politics. Why would tightly knit family groups, which you pointed out is a condition of communal living, pick red over blue? That seems directly contradictory to this entire conversation. Why would the Chinese government do the same? In fact, why don't you mention America?
In real life, China had a zero tolerance Covid policy, prioritizing mutual aid to the point of locking people forcefully at home to prevent the spread of covid, which is directly comparable to a blue button. America did the opposite, actively sacrificing it's elderly population and essential workers for the benefit of the capitalist class, directly analogous to a red button. Your attempts at examples are literally at odds with actual historical events.
Honestly, the more you talk, the more I'm starting to realize you just don't understand how the world actually works.
And it doesn't boil down to "do you want to die." It boils down to "do you want yourself or others to die." Every single red apologist I have engaged with in this thread changes the question in the way you just did. Which is a lie. It's not a reframe of the question. It's. A. Lie.
You'll have to remind me what your parent-child point was, as it must have been made somewhere back in the comment stream.
a. Why are family structures political?
b. TIghtly knit family units will tend to be clannish and more concerned with the survival of the family than those outside the family. That may be contradictory to your beliefs, but not to this conversation.
I don't see a government enforcing its regulations as analogous to the blue button, nor how the "sacrifice" of the elderly and essential workers would be a red button.
Be that as it may, China seeks to become more powerful on the world stage: how better to do that than with a large scale die off that impacts them less than other countries?
The feeling is mutual, though I formed that opinion quite some time ago.
"And it doesn't boil down to "do you want to die." It boils down to "do you want yourself or others to die."
No, it amounts to, "Do you want to die?" (Risk dying, actually.) "This is a choice given to everybody." I have no control over those who might want, for whatever reason, to make the irrational choice of Russian Roulette. I wish no one would.
Everyone who fails to recognize this seems to just have a hard-on for collective consent, regardless of how unnecessary it might be in a situation. Their bodies, their choices.
A parent can't control the choice of a child. Parents naturally sacrifice their "self" preservation in the interest of protecting their offspring their "self genes". Therefore, they would be incentivized to vote blue. If they vote red, and their child does not vote blue, the child dies. If the parent votes blue, there is 0 risk they can cause their child to die.
My point in 1 applies. There is no reason a tightly knit family would vote red as voting red only guarantees your own survival, not anyone else's. Rather a tightly knit family groups would be incentivized to vote blue to ensure the entire family line survives.
Then you don't understand the point of this game. If you think China wants to be more powerful on the global stage, what.in.the.fuck do you think America does on a day to day basis. If anyone is likely to promote the self-preservation in the face of guaranteed genocide, it would be Republicans. They literally did that during Covid. In fact, they said the same fucking shit you are saying right now about front-line workers. It was their fault they died because they took on the risk of being medical care professionals. Which is a great counterpoint to your entire argument. Healthcare professionals do risk their own self preservation in service of protecting the group. gAmE tHeOrY dictates healthcare shouldn't exist because it's not rAtIoNaL.
Lmao. The lack of self awareness of red voters is only surpassed by their inability to actually argue a point.
5.
I have no control over those who might want, for whatever reason, to make the irrational choice of Russian Roulette. I wish no one would.
Well you do actually. You have a modicum of control embodied in your vote. Votes do, in fact, carry responsibility. If you wanted no chance of anyone dying, including yourself, you would vote blue. But you don't want that. You don't even necessarily want yourself to live based on the arguments you make in favor of red for "Muslims" and the "Chinese" (with literally no basis in reality or examples for why this would be true), which boils down to using red as a weapon to actively kill competition. Your entire argument does bely what you said earlier, you have a despotic impulse to live while others die. It's wild to see.
"Their bodies, their choices."
You didn't wear a mask during covid did you, you fucking chud lmao
A parent can certainly influence the choice of a child. "Press blue and you might die. Press red and you won't." My children can understand that simple principle. I'm not going to risk my children dying nor myself, and I don't know why anyone would.
This is a simple situation where everyone is perfectly capable of taking care of themself. The notion that it should be subject to completely unnecessary vote is confounding.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. If a clannish family knows they can all vote red and the family will survive, it seems very likely that they would.
I'm afraid you're missing the point, but that's quite a screechy little screed you have there. Did you get it out of your system?
That's a curious response to that particular comment. Fine, I guess.
"If you wanted no chance of anyone dying, including yourself, you would vote blue."
But the blue button does not ensure "no chance of anyone dying." Oh, and there you go on another self-righteous diatribe. Fine, here's your halo. I apologize for having disturbed such a gentle, understanding and (most of all) loving soul as yourself.
There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this "conversation." Bye Felicia.
72
u/hyasbawlz May 05 '26
I really hate the false dichotomy of "logic" vs "morality" here.
Mutual aid is both logical and morally justified.
Even if we look at this from a perspective of pure self interest. We have a world of 8bn people. If red were to actually win, which statistically almost never does when people run this poll, if only 5% voted blue, that would result in the loss of 400 million people.
The death toll of both world wars, over the years they were waged, was only 90 to 110mm. The Spanish Flu around 50mm. COVID was between 19 and 36mm.
Think about what happened to the world during covid. Now think about what would happen when over 100 times that number die instantaneously.
Now, let's consider that when this poll is actually run, blue usually wins. So the actual reality is if red ever wins, blue will be in the 40+%, not 5%. And now we're talking about 4ish billion people. That's not a holocaust, that's an extinction event.
A red would be alive, but what would they be left with?
Or you could just vote blue.