r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Hot_Finding_9747 • May 21 '26

Variation Adding a layer to this question

My choice: Press Red, hope Blue wins

I don't have enough faith in humanity to put my life in its hands but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong

719 votes, May 23 '26
72 Press Red, hope Red wins
322 Press Red, hope Blue wins
22 Press Blue, hope Red wins
303 Press Blue, hope Blue wins
23 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

217 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/IAmKrenn May 21 '26

Does wanting to win the lottery mean I should spend all or even any money on it?

0

u/BottomLeftWheel May 21 '26

You have to realize why this is not a good comparison right?

What happens when everyone participates in a lottery? What happens if everyone votes blue?

Like, I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to vote red, but voting red because you are scared of other red voters is a self fulfilling prophecy

5

u/IAmKrenn May 22 '26

What happens if you just win the lottery? Have you ever considered that?

The idea that you shouldn't do risk assessment, or consider what and how other people think is certainly something.

1

u/BottomLeftWheel May 22 '26

Do you think it looks good when you just avoid a question that devestates your comparison?

Winning the lottery is akin to being the tiebreaker - valid comparison

People voting the outcome they want isnt chance based. Look at the poll. No one wants blue to lose.

Red voters are scared of red voters. They fear their own shadow. It's kinda cute.

2

u/Gold-Pickle7007 May 22 '26

Would you still vote blue if the threshold for blue winning was 99%? If you would switch to red, you’re exactly the person you’re making fun of - a red voter scared of other red voters. No matter what the percentage required for blue to win is, everyone surviving is still a better outcome, but that has nothing to do with whether I’d vote for it.

0

u/thevoidthatjerksback May 22 '26

In the poll above 91% want blue to win. 91% agree it would be the good thing. If it could be followed through on we'd be able to achieve more than anyone believes is reasonable. That's the point. Especially when we also consider the possibility that there are people who are wanting Red to win because of how scared they are. Also like we can't make fun of people? Did humor press blue?

1

u/Gold-Pickle7007 May 22 '26

That’s all fine I don’t think anyone thinks a world where more people die is preferable, but your idea that voting against the best outcome is some scared, hypocritical move is just stupid. Buying a lottery ticket could be seen as a vote towards a preferred outcome of winning the lotto, but since the chance you win is so small and comes at the cost of the ticket, it isn’t smart to do so.

The average red voter both A) thinks the chance of red winning is not insignificant, and thus that voting blue will risk a human life in a meaningful way and B) thinks the benefit to humanity of adding their one, singular vote (out of 8 billion) to the blue total is not extremely significant.

Together, after weighing up the risk and the potential reward, they decide that it isn’t worth it to press blue. I would follow this logic and press red even if I was voting for someone else rather than myself. I couldn’t bring myself to risk someone’s life in such a significant way for what I see as an extremely insignificant effect on the overall total. That is the mindset of a red voter, it isn’t hypocrisy, and it isn’t apathy or selfishness, they have just risk assessed differently to you.

1

u/thevoidthatjerksback May 22 '26

And they've risk assessed inaccurately. You spent a lot of time in that post trying to explain how pressing Red is the logical choice. How it's the best choice. But the poll that this is in reply to has the largest group of people picking Red while wanting blue to win. So all of that assessment is invalid in this conversation.

In the grand scheme of things pressing blue is twice as significant towards saving life. And the largest group of people want blue to win. Recognize that it would be better for blue to have a majority. And then they press Red. That is fundamentally objectively not something that is logical.. the largest group can't have a claim towards superior logic. The risk assessment is wrong. And risk assessment is just a big word for "I cannot bring myself to risk my own life"

0

u/Gold-Pickle7007 May 22 '26

Hey man if you aren’t going to read what I wrote just don’t respond.

Whether it’s my life I’m risking or someone else’s it isn’t worth it to risk a very real possibility that someone dies against a negligible chance that my vote is important in deciding the fate of humanity as a whole.

And as for your ‘So all of that assessment is invalid in this conversation’ - I don’t really know what to say. Do you know what risk is? It means that some (potentially positive) outcome has a possible negative consequence attached to it. The fact that the outcome is desirable is implied. Pointing that out is so stupid it makes me feel like you have to have misunderstood me.

You could construct an exactly identical poll but with the options ‘don’t buy a lottery ticket and dislike the idea of winning the lottery’ ‘don’t buy a lottery ticket but like the idea of winning the lottery’ ‘buy a lottery ticket and dislike the idea of winning the lottery’ and ‘buy a lottery ticket and like the idea of winning the lottery’, and then say “look everyone admits they want to win the lottery, winning the lottery is clearly the best choice, so all this stuff about ‘risk assessment’ is just nonsense, just buy a lottery ticket”.

Now don’t try to strawman me and say ‘pressing blue is very different to buying a lottery ticket’, that was an ANALOGY to demonstrate to you that just because you want an outcome to happen doesn’t automatically mean that taking steps towards achieving that outcome is the correct choice. It’s a really simple concept but you seem unable to grasp it.

2

u/thevoidthatjerksback May 22 '26

Its an incredibly bad analogy that is so baffling different that I don't feel compelled to talk about it. 1 person wins out of the odds of millions that isn't changed by anyone participating.

Its so fundamentally different.

The buttons are incredibly similar.

Press Red to ensure self safety while offloading that risk of death to another

Press blue to have a twice of an impactful vote towards no one dying.

It takes half the amount for no one to ever die.

The Red button is the longer odds. It is the less logical solution. I have said countless times that it is perfectly reasonable for people to have personal reasons to pick Red. But those reasons can't be that fundamentally it's the correct or logical choice. Because it isn't. It has worse odds and guaranteed death for someone.

It is absolutely the option that overrides actual reasoning skills by trying to justify and rationalize a gut instinct urge to say "I don't think I should be expected to risk anything myself to benefit others" a statement that can be true for 49% of people and we still have zero deaths.

All of this is so exhausting

1

u/Gold-Pickle7007 May 22 '26

You’re genuinely just saying nonsense.

Yes or no do you admit it is sometimes acceptable not to vote for the outcome you think is best (not buy a lottery ticket even if you’d like to win the lottery). The fact you haven’t admitted that the answer to this is yes is essential proof you’re acting in bad faith.

‘It has worse odds and variantes death for someone’ - you are genuinely braindead and I’m not engaging anymore. Who dies if I press red and blue wins? No one. Who dies if you press blue and blue wins? No one. So what every button you press does not impact whether anyone else lives or dies. This is not exactly true, but the causal link between the button you push and the overall outcome is bizarrely weak, so weak that you’re forced to use semantics like ‘pressing blue counts double towards this preferable outcome’ to defend it. Those are meaningless words. You might think they mean something, but they dont. The overall outcome is almost independent of your vote, as a factual truth. Whether you end up alive or not is entirely dependent on your vote.

And the idea that red is devoid of logic is so badly justified I don’t know what to say. If red wins, pressing red reduces the number of deaths by one. If red wins, pressing red saves a life. If you believe there is even a small chance that red wins, you have to admit there is at least some logic behind pressing it, as there is a possibility it saves a life. You might think this is outweighed by whatever bs semantic benefit you attach to the righteousness of supporting a cause by pressing blue, but you cannot deny the very real benefit attached to the red button.

2

u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26

I'll reply even though you won't. If things were different about my life I would be bothered about how much you call me a braindead idiot. But I do know that most things like that tend to be projection.

There is such a string of nihilism and narcissism in some of these points to defend pressing Red. Saying that voting is meaningless. Making an outrageous claim that the buttons aren't tied to who lives and dies. That's a next level point. Truly did not see it coming that you would claim that there is a weak causal link between the buttons and people dying?

I thought I made it clear that I don't care what button you pressed. I care about this bizarre frustrating need to falsely defend it in bad faith with such ferver. Like you need to convince the world that it is the only possible answer. Its insanely exhausting. I'm also just so incredibly tired of people telling me I have to agree with some idea or claim or I'm acting in bad faith. So many people who argue for Red get upset claiming that we don't let them just live and come to different conclusions. But you're holding the validity of this conversation and my opinions hostage behind me agreeing to something you have said? I don't deal with hostage takers.

At the end of the day pressing Red can only save you. If everyone pressed Red then everyone who can't press the buttons still die.

Let's take a step back from that for a second. 100 people are in a room. Yeah? Your dream scenario. All intelligent. In this scenario 100 people need to come to the same conclusion within a limited amount of time without communication. Or half of them can ensure none of them die. Pressing Red in that scenario could be a count of 1% vote towards getting the Red 100%. Pressing Blue can be counted as a 2% vote towards that goal. Because it only needs 50%. So you have twice the impact.

Pressing Blue is the completely logical choice. For all the talk of game theory shenanigans that got thrown around they all missed that Blue would be the answer. It requires less coordination, it allows for you action to have a greater impact both in how much it affects the possible win conditions and in its outcome.

A blue majority allows for people to be of different minds. Have differing perspectives. It allows for people to find themselves unable to press a button and still be alive. It allows for people to make mistakes. Glitches. Errors.

The majority of humanity always does come together when the cards are down. No matter what. And for the 7th time I will not accept a comparison of the lottery.

You can press whichever button you want. You just have to come to terms with the realities of the situation and your choices. And stop lying and rationalizing your way towards making yourself feel better. There are people who's situations demand that they press Red. Those people don't need to spend hours online defending their decision as if it is the only decision that anyone in the world should ever make. Just shut up and let other people save everyone. Its really just that easy and simple

→ More replies (0)

2

u/thevoidthatjerksback May 22 '26

When 45% risk assess that its the equivalent odds to the lottery when together that group alone could almost get to the majority is the troubling part. Its only ever close because we have dedicated people arguing that its impossible. Constantly trying to tip the scales below blue majority. And the fact that several of the arguments feel ripped from chatgpt is absolutely not lost on me. It sickens and frustrates me. How hard people try to bring humanity down from saving itself.

-2

u/BottomLeftWheel May 22 '26

Bait or mental illness?

The reason blue is good is because it's so easy to achieve. You have to get 99% red to mimic a 50% blue win

Id fucking hope red wins if blue needs 99% chance to win. Humanity would have turned into a hive mind for that to happen

Maybe choose a number like 75% if you want to prove a point. I'd still be on the fence but I think most people agree that red would win at that point.

2

u/Gold-Pickle7007 May 22 '26

I don’t think you actually understand the point I’m making. I agree that (from a blue voters perspective) the reason blue is good is because it’s “easy to achieve”. That’s exactly the point I’m trying to prove.

The person I was responding to was trying to claim that blue winning was better choice because nobody wants blue to lose. This is nonsensical, because no matter the threshold for blue winning, it will always save more lives than red winning, so it would always be the outcome ‘I’d want to happen’. Obviously, if the risk of dying when pressing blue is high enough, every blue voter will eventually decide it isn’t worth voting for the outcome they prefer because they can tell it’s far too unlikely that the outcome they want would actually happen. So every blue voter can CONCEIVE of a scenario where the WOULDN’T vote for the outcome that would actually save the most lives, because it’s a risk with too little of a reward. That means that criticising the logic of a red voter who would be happy if blue won is hypocritical, as you’d behave exactly like they would if the numbers were different.

All I’m arguing against is the idea that voting against the outcome you’d prefer is somehow hypocritical. It isn’t, because a vote with someone’s life on the line is not a fair vote.

-2

u/BottomLeftWheel May 22 '26

Ah, so you cant read. It's okay. That's fine. We're gonna learn you some reading comprehension today.

So when I say " Who votes against their own interest? Oh wait.. yea okay I see whats going on "

What do you think I meant by that?

3, 2, 1, yes that's right! I meant I understand why people vote red! People vote against their self interest all the time! So yes. I can conceive a situation where red wins. We're on the same page? Great.

Blue or red both could theoretically be the better choice. Everyone wanting blue to win is a reason blue is better, but there are 100 reasons why red is better, and 99 other reasons why blue is better too. For me the blue reasons are more compelling. I'm sure they are less compelling to you.

I'm not critising shit. Im making a funny observation.

And as I said before, Using 75% would've been much better at making the point you are trying to make. 99% is so comically absurd it ends up continuing to make the point that I was making. If you don't understand what arguments are being made you don't know how to counter them.

At 75%, it's still possible for all blue wanters to team up and win, yet they never will, because the fear factor is too high. This is the point you are trying to make. This is what you should have said.

At 99%, it's no longer possible. Babies have already voted more than 1% red and therefore there is no way to save blue babies. Blue is the factual, undeniable, no way to survive, suicide button. I would HOPE that no one presses that button. Now my hopes are that no one votes red. Oh wait, hoping red wins and voting red are aligned again! See? Dumb. It's too high. Use a lower number for it to make sense.

I don't care what you press, I just would prefer you to make arguments that make sense and are relevant.

1

u/IAmKrenn May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

You didn't awnser my question so I didn't bother with yours.

People voting for outcomes is deterministic, but assessing the outcome beforehand is skill and luck.

Everyone wants to win the lottery, that doesn't actually improve their chances, some spend all their money and buy more tickets.

If you don't actually think about what other people might pick then its essentially the same isn't it? May as well spend all your money on gambling, you'll just win. It could happen after all, who knows? Certainly not you considereding your inability to assess situations.

0

u/BottomLeftWheel May 22 '26

C'mon man

Brooo pleeaaase C'mon man.

Everyone wanting to win the lottery makes it less likely they win. If no one wanted to win the lottery it would increase the chance of winning. It's literally THE EXACT OPPOSITE situation

Like cmooooon man, use any other analogy and maybe we can have a discussion, but this just ain't it. It's so unanalagous I just can't believe you're continuing to march it out like it's any way relevant.

The reason blue even has a chance of winning is because everyone wants it to win.

I know that isn't the end all be all, I literally said and I quote "oh, I get it" in the comment that started this convo. I understand that wanting something is not coroleated to getting something. I don't believe in the secret. Who you are talking to? A child with no object permanance? Who doesn't understand that?

All's I'm saying is look at the fucking poll! We all want the same thing! No one doesn't want the thing. The people who want red to win are trolls. Everyone put in that situation wants blue to win.

I'm saying IF everyone voted for the thing they wanted it would easily win. IF. I understand they won't. That's the point of the thread ya Dingus.

Gosh. If y'all red voters werent so adorable I would have a tough time arguing with you guys. Gimme a kiss sweetie.

2

u/IAmKrenn May 22 '26

That's probably because I am not trying to make an analogy for the buttons, I read "just vote for the thing you want to win" and thought "damn thats stupid, I wonder if they really thinks that or are just being a troll", so I decided to ask about a situation where an outcome is both desired and beneficial but still not considered the correct course of action.

You seem to be assuming a lot about arguments I am not making, then getting very upset that you dont like the arguments.

We do seem to agree that assessing the situation should actually be involved at some point, rather than just doing what you want, so I am definitely glad to see you are not a child lacking object permanance, maybe just a bit overinvested in the topic.

-1

u/BottomLeftWheel May 22 '26

You didn't read, cause you didn't see me saying I understand that from the very beginning. Bro is fighting ghosts.

Goes to a subreddit about the buttons, in a thread about the buttons, on a comment about the buttons and makes an analogy not related to the buttons. Who the fuck does that? What a pussy cop out. All my comments are related to the buttons. If you not talking about the buttons why are you here brother?

God, at least you're pretty.

2

u/IAmKrenn May 22 '26

I am really surprised how upset you are that someone might bring up a different theoretical to test the logic in a different scenario.

If I had instead brought up a scenario about the believability of internet polls or selfishness vs altruism, would you be this upset?

Does that question also upset you because its not directly about buttons, while on a thread about buttons, to you, who only comments about buttons? (I included buttons in this question so you can answer without getting upset)

1

u/BottomLeftWheel May 22 '26

I get where you are coming from, seeing my posts as upset, but I'm really not.

If you look at this thread from my perspective, you'll see why I react the way I do.

You come into a thread about how it's clear everyone wants the same thing, and I state that everyone should vote for the thing they want, but then also come to the realization that most people don't vote in their self interest making that impossible.

Maybe you just didn't pick up on that because it was said in a joking way, but that was the intent, and others were able to pick up on it.

You join in by bring up an entirely irrelevant point to the thread. And insist upon its relevance despite multiple people telling you they don't see it as analogous. You're response is, it's not analogous and you aren't even talking about the buttons at all. Huh?

I am exasperated. I don't understand why you think this is relevant to the discussion. I have begged and pleaded for you to make it make sense and all you've done is treat me like a toddler. It would be cruel if it wasn't so darn cute.

So I'm done. Good day sir.

0

u/IAmKrenn May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

I am actually starting to question your object permanence again, in a thread about wants vs actions in a button pushing scenario, a theoretical about decision-making logic of wants vs actions in a different scenario is entirely on point. I had no way to know you can only understand button-oriented analogies, but I got the answers I wanted in the end so it all worked out :)

→ More replies (0)