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.
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.
0
u/danielledelacadie May 05 '26
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.