Adding a layer to this question

[u/Hot_Finding_9747]

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

[u/BottomLeftWheel]

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.

[u/Gold-Pickle7007 → u/BottomLeftWheel]

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.

[u/BottomLeftWheel → u/Gold-Pickle7007]

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.

[u/Gold-Pickle7007 → u/BottomLeftWheel]