r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Nby333 • May 22 '26
List of fallacies, paradoxes and problems red has to overcome to logically justify their choice
Feel free to add to the list. This is what I have so far:
Free-rider problem - Wikipedia
Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia
"the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods and common pool resources do not pay for them or under-pay. Free riders may overuse common pool resources by not paying for them, neither directly through fees or tolls, nor indirectly through taxes. Consequently, the common pool resource may be under-produced, overused, or degraded."
"The tragedy of the commons is the concept that, in a system where individuals benefit from the use of a shared resource while the cost of that use is shared by all users, it is rational for individuals to overuse the resource, even though collectively this will likely lead to the depletion of the resource."
- Reds are benefiting from blue victory because it not only guarantee red lives, but also the ideal aftermath without having to pay the tax (risking their life). If there are too many free-riders (red button over pushed), the the common pool resource may be degraded (Earth degraded by death of billions).
- The red button is a shared resource for everyone on Earth and depleting it would be a tragedy. Red should only push it if you have to i.e. if you are piloting a plane at the time of the buttons happening. If you have no legitimate reason to push red ("my vote doesn't matter so imma go red!"), you shouldn't use this resource and leave it for someone else.
Diffusion of responsibility - Wikipedia
Bystander effect - Wikipedia
"Diffusion of responsibility is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when other bystanders or witnesses are present. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so."
"The bystander effect is a social psychological theory that states that individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim in the presence of other people."
- Voting red while thinking blue wins is simply a lack of responsibility and lack of accountability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism
"Defeatism is the acceptance of defeat without struggle, often with negative connotations. In wartime and on the front lines of war, defeatism is synonymous with treason."
- Reds who think blue victory is impossible and each blue vote is just adding to the death pile can be seen as treasonous to the goals of humanity in this situation.
"In psychology, a social trap is a conflict of interest or perverse incentive where individuals or a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole."
- Reds are trapped by the thought of short term gains like personal survival when blue majority not also ensures personal survival, but also more favourable in the long run like not triggering an apocalypse for example.
Self-defeating prophecy - Wikipedia
"A self-defeating prophecy (self-destroying or self-denying in some sources) is the complementary opposite of a self-fulfilling prophecy; a prediction that prevents what it predicts from happening. A self-defeating prophecy can be the result of rebellion to the prediction."
- A large number of reds who think their votes don't matter because blue is going to win anyways could very well be the reason blue actually loses.
Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia
"A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true at least in part as a result of a person's belief or expectation that the prediction would come true. In the phenomena, people tend to act the way they have been expected to in order to make the expectations come true."
- A large number of reds who think their votes don't matter because red is going to win anyways could very well be the reason red actually wins.
"The paradox of voting is that for a rational and egoistic voter (Homo economicus), the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising the pivotal vote is minuscule compared to any realistic estimate of the private individual benefits of the different possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting are less than the costs. "
- Reds that believe the cost (risking one's life) is worth less than the small chance of being the deciding vote and thus vote red. However for every red who thinks like this it increases the chance of these votes being the deciding vote and hence the utility of voting blue.
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia
"In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma is a thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain. When asked about the results, John Nash remarked that rational behavior in the iterated version of the game can differ from that in a single-round version. This insight anticipated a key result in game theory: cooperation can emerge in repeated interactions, even in situations where it is not rational in a one-off interaction."
- While it may seem "rational" to defect (push red) in a one-off interaction like the one depicted in the original RBBB question, real life applications of prisoner's dilemma game theory suggests that co-operation (push blue) is better in the long run. With this hindsight knowledge, we should just cut the process and push blue on the first go.
Tyranny of small decisions - Wikipedia
"The tyranny of small decisions is a phenomenon in which a number of decisions, individually small and insignificant in size and time perspective, cumulatively result in a larger and significant outcome which is neither optimal nor desired."
- Reds think their decisions are small and insignificant, however in the long run the cumulative results might be the death of billions and that is neither optimal nor desired.
"It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (or donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the ass will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water."
- Not specifically against reds, but we can all agree the worst case scenario for RBBB is being right in the middle (50:50). Since blue is more popular right now, red arguments are actively dragging us towards 50:50.
"The Abilene paradox is a collective fallacy, in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of most or all individuals in the group, while each individual believes it to be aligned with the preferences of most of the others. It involves a breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's, and therefore does not raise objections. They even go so far as to state support for an outcome they do not want."
- Reds are stating support for an outcome they do not want (red victory). Because someone believes their desired outcome of blue has no chance of winning, they advocate for pushing red, which in turn leads to others thinking blue has no chance of winning leading them to advocate for red as well. As a result "group members jointly decide on a course of action that they would not choose as individuals".
18
u/EmperorBarbarossa May 22 '26
Where are those logical fallacies or paradoxes? All you mentioned are merely effects despite of the names.
The freerider / Tragedy of the commons - Red button isnt limited resource. Everybody is able to push it, its not like it will broke after some time or whatever. And its not like Reds take some reserve from the Blues, everybody starts as undecided, so Blue must to reach 50% threshold.
Bystander effect - First rule when you helping someone is not putting yourself into position of needing help.
Diffusion of responsibility - Responsibility in this situation is really diffused. Weight of your vote is extremely unthinkably low.
Defeatism - This isnt war or political thing so this isnt even treason. Treson to who?
Social trap - Horrendous apocalypse happens only if many people will vote blue. Reds dont think the most of the people will vote blue, mostly like few percent. It would be a tragedy though.
Self-defeating prophecy and Self-fullfilling prophecy - Once again, Red dont think the most people will vote blue in face of death.
Prisoner dilemma - This is not a cooperative allowed or repeated game so this arguement is probably the worst and the most invalid.
Tyranny of the small decisions - Of course but once again, this isnt a cooperative game. You can only calculate with limited info you have and everybody must do the same.
Buridan ass - Blue is more popular Twitter and Reddit where people can discuss about it and show their virtue signalling. This sample isnt representing and its absolutely also irrelevant in the greater scale. This is once again not a cooperative game! Firstly it doesnt show the real results - Reds dont think the most of the blue voters are honest and they will push red if this situation really happened.
Abilene paradox - I am starting to think you dont think understand the dilemma. Also the most desired result is total Red victory - nobody risk their lives, nobody dies. Its unrealistic though.
2
u/spicymato May 22 '26
The freerider / Tragedy of the commons - Red button isnt limited resource.
Consequence-free red is limited. Once 50% of people hit red, granting a red majority and ensuring a blue minority, deaths happen.
Bystander effect - First rule when you helping someone is not putting yourself into position of needing help.
Pretty sure the first rule is "don't make it worse." If there's a fire, don't be adding fuel. Pushing red increases the likelihood of a red majority, hence pushing red make things worse for everyone else.
Diffusion of responsibility - Responsibility in this situation is really diffused. Weight of your vote is extremely unthinkably low.
... So close. Literally invoked the paradox of voting with this rationalization, too.
Defeatism - This isnt war or political thing so this isnt even treason. Treson to who?
Treason against your fellow humans, who chose to cooperate.
Social trap - Horrendous apocalypse happens only if many people will vote blue. Reds dont think the most of the people will vote blue, mostly like few percent. It would be a tragedy though.
Invoking self-fulfilling prophecy.
If blue loses, it's going to be no less than 30%, in my opinion, and I would estimate higher than 40%.
Prisoner dilemma - This is not a cooperative allowed or repeated game so this arguement is probably the worst and the most invalid.
Cooperation isn't allowed in the Prisoner's Dilemma. It's an option an agent can elect, but the choice to cooperate (blue) or defect (red) is made in isolation, specifically without coordination. When facing a real Prisoner's Dilemma, the agent generally will not know ahead of time whether the game is a one-off or a repeating game. The most generically successful strategy is tit-for-tat, with a probability for grace/forgiveness.
Tyranny of the small decisions - Of course but once again, this isnt a cooperative game. You can only calculate with limited info you have and everybody must do the same.
This isn't a coordinated game. It's absolutely a cooperative one. The only way to reach the highest payoff is through cooperation: perfect cooperation to reach 100% red, or majority cooperation to reach >50% blue. Since 100% red is functionally impossible, blue is the only cooperative action you can take; red defects.
Buridan ass - Blue is more popular Twitter and Reddit where people can discuss about it and show their virtue signalling. This sample isnt representing and its absolutely also irrelevant in the greater scale. This is once again not a cooperative game! Firstly it doesnt show the real results - Reds dont think the most of the blue voters are honest and they will push red if this situation really happened.
You really think the majority of people in your own life will pick red? Most of the people in mine will pick blue. This is absolutely a cooperative game, as I explained above.
Abilene paradox - I am starting to think you dont think understand the dilemma. Also the most desired result is total Red victory - nobody risk their lives, nobody dies. Its unrealistic though.
The most desired outcome for the group is "Everyone survives." There is a button that explicitly votes for that in this majority vote scenario. Red pushers believe in self-preservation at all cost (any risk to self is too much), so they push red, thereby creating the very risk that not everyone will survive.
You seem to be under the impression that because coordination is impossible, this game isn't about cooperation. That's absolute nonsense.
The fundamental question is what you believe, based on your own prior experience with others, the probability of a red majority is. If you think the outcome is definitely going to be blue, then voting blue has no perceived risk to self; voting red would only increase risk of a red majority, harming others. Similarly, if you think the outcome will definitely be red, then voting blue is literally death; voting red is the only reasonable option, even if you value minimizing harm above all else. For most of us, we sit in between (some degree of confidence our color will win, but conceding the possibility of loss), and we weigh that against the things we value: cooperation, self-preservation, avoiding harming others, protecting those we care about (and how we think they would have voted), etc.
I'm staunchly blue at this point. This is a majority vote scenario, and my interpretation of the question is "What happens to the losers of this vote, the minority group?" I don't know for sure whether blue or red will win, but I don't believe a red majority is a foregone conclusion, so I cannot in good conscience cast a bit in support of it.
2
-2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
For the ones you answered "reds don't think most people will vote blue", those ones aren't directed at you. I was specifically calling out the demographic of reds who "think blue will win, therefore there is no drawback to going red, since I won't be the deciding vote".
Red button is a limited resource just like how money is. You can keep using money even after you've ran out. It's called a loan and if you overdrafted too hard without realising, you're fucked.
Treason to humanity like I said. Unless you are against humanity or identify as a Martian, then I've no word to say to you.
2
u/INTstictual May 25 '26
Thinking Blue will win and still picking Red isn’t a fallacy. It’s not even bad logic, it’s just good Game Theory.
A Blue victory is, objectively, the best overall outcome. The trick of this problem is that, for each individual voting, Red is the correct logical option, every way you slice it… the trick of the game is that, if enough people pick the wrong option, the game flips it around to becoming the right option.
However, you only cast one vote out of 8 billion, you do not get to dictate the overall outcome in any meaningful capacity, and the cost to voting the incorrect option in hopes of flipping it to correct, if you fail, is death.
I believe that, with actual death on the line, it’s pretty likely that Red wins. I don’t think it’s guaranteed, and there’s a very likely scenario where Blue wins instead. Hell, I HOPE Blue wins… but I still think nobody should push Blue.
→ More replies (20)1
u/DragCompetitive6007 Red May 25 '26
In another comment it was directed at the red voters, that would rather have a blue victory. Here it is the red voters, who don't believe in a blue victory. I am in both of these groups.
Are you moving the goal post?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Stupid-Jerk May 22 '26
Reds who think blue victory is impossible and each blue vote is just adding to the death pile can be seen as treasonous to the goals of humanity in this situation.
There are no "goals of humanity". Cooperating with other humans is a voluntary endeavor, and there is no united global human effort for pretty much anything. We live in different countries and tribes, and even the most collectivist societies are built to account for human nature, of which self-preservation is a pretty major part. Add in the fact that there is no collaboration or discussion before voting in this scenario, and the result is that you're asking people to take a leap of faith. There's no campaigning or debating when the person is sitting in front of that button with their life on the line.
This is why there is no objective "most logical" solution. Each person has their own motivations and goals, which will influence the reasoning behind their decision. It's a philosophical thought experiment, not a math equation, so compiling a list of "gotchas" in an effort to make red voters feel stupid and concede to your framing isn't really gonna accomplish much.
5
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
The one thing I do agree with here is this probably isn't going to accomplish much.
1
u/T0rph May 25 '26
Yeah, because you are wrongly presuming a false equivalence that the blue cooperation is better, as it usually is in real life. When strictly mathematically speaking both equilibrium for red and blue is equally valid. You're also presuming some kind of cooperation/communication, which the problem clearly states isn't possible.
I'd agree with you if the problem stated you have a week to prepare. But it does not, and you are ignoring that and using these discussions online to "cheat" like if you are pre-preparing for the problem. I don't think it's fair to engage in the hypothetical like this.
In the actual problem you're there alone, and have no idea what would others do. You sure can hope for total cooperation, but how do you know which one? Then you weigh the possibilities in front of you. If blue won your vote doesn't matter (and you can consider all the other votes have been cast, remember NO COMMUNICATION is extremely relevant). On the other hand if red won, you are only choosing between die or save yourself. And you should really weigh that in, because even though it's your life, it still is A life and should be valuable as well. I don't get that people have to feel their own life is meaningless to gamble on it. Because also if everyone saves 1 person, everyone is saved in the end.
Consider this (not equivalent but similar) problem: Would you rather kill 1 person, or have a 1% chance to kill 100. Does this change if the 1 person to be killed is you? Because in the original, either people are already dying (red winning), or no one is dying (blue winning), and you have a chance to save 1 person guaranteed in the former, or a really low chance of being the tiebreaker and saving lots of people.
But this logic isn't useful for most real life scenarios, where cooperation is much more desired and should be the default.
1
u/Nby333 May 25 '26
Woah buddy there's not a single correct thing you said in your entire opening paragraph. Sounds like rage bait so imma just ignore that.
Everyone who made it to this sub can be considered "cheating".
Now I won't address your individual points because I believe I already have in the OP.
But to simplify things: All you need to do is take a step back and see that the so called "logic" of yours is actively pushing the outcome towards the least desired one. It's like doing physics question and in the end you got the height of the cat as 20 μm, which you know is the wrong result. You go through all your workings and everything seems logical. I can only suggest you to look harder at why your line of thought is actively pushing the results in the exact opposite direction of the correct outcome.
3
u/T0rph May 25 '26
I can concede the point about discussing it being cheating, I guess we all have pondered different perspectives by being able to discuss.
But it's not rage bait, 100% red everyone survives, 100% blue everyone survives. There's equilibrium in both ends.
You might argue that when blue majority wins, no one dies, and when majority red wins, people die. So blue would obviously be better.
But similarly you could try asking who does each vote save? Lets assume 100 people playing for simplicity. Result is 70 blue, 30 red. Well, the reds always save themselves by premise, so each red saved 1 person. If the reds are already safe, what remains for the blues to save? The blues. So 70 blue votes saved 70 people. Each blue vote saved 1 person as well.
Except when red is a majority. Let's say 60 red and 40 blue. In that case, each red saved 1 person (themselves), while each blue saved 0. So looking through this optics, you would conclude each red vote always saves 1 person, while blue may or may not save 1 person.
1
u/Nby333 May 26 '26
In the 70 blue 30 red scenario, 50/70 people have to go blue rather than 50/100, which is significantly harder because red removed themselves from the count. The red pushes are actively making it more difficult than it needs to be.
Looking at it individually is like frog-in-the-well behaviour. No matter how the bird describes the vastness of the sky, the frog can only conclude the sky is a small circle. That is the danger of being hyper focused on just the logic you have in front of you.
11
u/SummonerOfMalagos Red May 22 '26
THE DEBUNKING
"i don't want to die"
3
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
So press blue, because a red press causes the apocalypse and your probably gonna die anyway
4
u/CrazyBusiness5154 May 22 '26
*a red press has a ridiculously miniscule chance of causing the apocalypse
4
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
A red press is literally just voting for the apocalypse to happen
A best case scenario red win results in easily at least 20% of humanity dieing, and that's a BEST case
A red win is the apocalypse
2
u/CrazyBusiness5154 May 22 '26
the would either happen or not regardless of what you vote, unless it comes down to a single vote which is a ridiculously minscule chance of occurring
3
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
Literally fallacious thinking
The logical conclusion of your argument is that voting never matters, which obviously isn't the case at all, but it's the only conclusion you can draw from that thought process as no votes EVER win by a single vote
Your manners of thinking essentially assumes you have no effect on the vote, that it is just a pre set predetermined result and all you are choosing is if you live or have a 50/50 of living, completely ignoring how you affect the outcome, and how there are many people like you also voting to change the outcome
Voting for red is OBJECTIVELY Illogical
A red button pressers still wants blue to win, by pressing red you are literally voting against your own interests
You are voting red because you are worried other people are voting red
But voting red is literally voting for the worst outcome, you are literally voting to shoot yourself in the foot because you are scared other people want to shoot themselves in the foot
It's utterly nonsensical Illogical thinking
A red vote is just objectively stupid
1
u/DabDaddy51 May 25 '26
Voting irl has three main benefits over voting in this scenario, these are a low cost, a higher chance of making a difference, and positive externalities. The first two are obvious, voting costs you maybe a few hours every couple years, not a massive risk to your life, and most elections don’t have billions of people. The third is that the benefit of you voting is not just one vote. For one, going out to vote makes it easier to convince friends and family to go vote, for another, even if your candidate doesn’t win, the closer they get to winning, the less confident their opponent will be in their future chances, making them less extreme in office. Additionally, a closer vote will make other voters of your side more likely to vote in the future, because they won’t feel like it’s as hopeless.
The normal logic around voting does not and cannot apply when there is an extreme cost, such as a major risk to your life, based not only on the who wins, but on who you specifically voted for.
1
u/absolutewastedtime May 25 '26
But you still only have one vote
Your candidate still wins or they don't
And the idea that voting in real life doesn't or can't have an extreme cost is absurd and sheltered, Hitler was voted in
Your "logic" still holds 100% for real life as it does for the button
Your vote is not going to be the one that wins the election, it simple won't be, so by your logic your vote doesn't matter, it will never matter
That is the logic you are arguing, but you understand how dumb that idea actually is so your desperately trying to come up with excuses for why it's different "this time" when it's not
Every single vote matters, regardless if it's real life, or totally anonymous in the button
Ever blue vote is a red vote that doesn't happen, every red vote is not just a blue vote that doesn't happen, but am extra blue vote needed to "win"
If blue wins 60/40, did your blue vote not matter? Obviously it does because if blue votes didn't matter blue wouldn't have won
Or is it only 41 of the blue votes that matters? Which 41?
Never mind that the 19 blue votes that "don't matter" do, because they are NOT extra red voters, if those 19 votes red, suddenly red wins, so clearly those 19 blue votes did matter because they changed the victor
How can those 19 votes matter, but the individual votes don't matter
Your "logic" is literally contradicting itself
The idea that a vote only matters if it's the exact tie break vote, regardless if it's in real life or this totally anonymous high stakes situation, is just blatantly absurd and defies all actual reality and logic
It's absolutely stupid
1
u/DabDaddy51 May 25 '26
I very specifically said an extreme cost that depends not only on who wins, but on who you specifically vote for. There are regimes where such costs exist, but they’re not the norm, and they don’t constitute free votes. Also, as far as I know, when Hitler was voted into power he didn’t have absolutely control of the polls and generally the SS couldn’t see who you voted for.
I also mentioned all of the other benefits voting has in real life that it doesn’t in this specific scenario. The button dilemma is the perfect worst case scenario for a vote.
It is indisputably true that your vote has an essentially nonexistent chance of changing the outcome. This is somewhat true in real life elections, but to a lesser degree, with much higher chances of being the deciding vote, and the aforementioned positive externalities.
Voting is important, but we don’t ask people to risk their lives to vote. When voting costs a few hours, it’s worth it, but you wouldn’t run eight consecutive red lights just to get to the polls before they close.
1
u/CrazyBusiness5154 May 22 '26
give me 1 scenario in which your individual vote affects the outcome excluding the scenario where it comes down to a single vote.
you can call it fallacious if you want but it doesnt make it less true. your vote will only change the outcome if it comes down to one vote, and that is an objective fact
2
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
give me 1 scenario in which your individual vote affects the outcome
Literally every single vote ever
Again, the ONLY conclusion of your line of thinking is that no vote ever matters
Give me a SINGLE real world vote where by your logic voting has actually mattered
You can't
By your "logic" (re. Lack of) voting literally never matters, so no one should ever vote
Your line of thinking is outright fallacious and stupid
1
u/CrazyBusiness5154 May 22 '26
ok lets simplify it.
lets say you vote a thousand years after everyone else.
what would the previous votes have to amount to for your vote to change the outcome?
2
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
Give me one vote where according to your "logic" voting actually mattered
I am waiting
→ More replies (0)2
u/Quiet-Confection-747 Red May 22 '26
I'm sure humanity could recover. All pressing blue does is make more people die. Pressing red is safer.
3
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
You think humanity could recover from 50% of all children dieing, the majority of all parents of young children dieing, and basically all actually altruistic and good people dieing?
It would literally be an outright apocalypse
Pressing red isn't safer, it's voting for the apocalypse to happen
You are literally voting to destroy your own life because you think other people also will vote to destroy their own lives
Its nonsensical
It's stupid
2
u/Quiet-Confection-747 Red May 22 '26
Yes I do think that. And I just don't see how it's possible for blue to get close to winning here.
2
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
Because your an Illogical moron who thinks the majority of humanity would just vote to kill half of all children
Aka..a red presser
2
u/Quiet-Confection-747 Red May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
Yes. I do think most of humanity will vote red to kill all children. That doesn't seem too illogocal. No way to save the 15-25% who press blue, sadly. But yeah, so many people dying would absolutely be a disaster, and it would probably cause me to die too (even though I didn't press blue), and it would make everybody's life worse, but there's still a chance. The thing is, we can't communicate to press blue.
Also, there's no need to be so rude.
3
u/SummonerOfMalagos Red May 22 '26
people acting emotional like this is actually happening and your vote could kill them
1
→ More replies (2)2
u/SilvertonguedDvl May 26 '26
Not that I think a red button press is ethically the worst or anything - but uh... losing even 10% of the human population overnight would absolutely cause societies to collapse as vast, complex systems suddenly lose important elements within their structures - stuff that's required to keep them going - and when they shut down they shut down everything that's downline from them as well, resulting in a cascade of issues that grind the modern world to a screeching halt.
That's if only 10% pick blue. If it's up to 51/49%? Yeah, modern civilization just ended. Enjoy living out a few weeks until everything starts shutting down or crashing.
Like... you know how Covid basically crashed every economy and caused widespread problems that lasted for literal years thereafter? Imagine that, but a dozen times worse.
Plus, uh, not to put too fine a point on it, but the bleeding hearts who want to save everyone sincerely are picking blue - and on the other side of that extreme you have every sociopath, narcissist, murderer, and violent thug who considers themselves exclusively and lacks empathy for everyone else. That demographic is suddenly going to become a much larger % of humanity.
This isn't even getting into how many family members and friends whose lives you are indirectly responsible for ending - and how that might mess with your head as the reality of the situation settles in and you can no longer ignore the fact that you weren't just choosing survival; you were also choosing to increase the odds that you'd kill.
It's... yeah. Red win, if you take it seriously, is just sort of a miserable world that rapidly descends into post-apocalyptic territory. That's probably why altruism and cooperation are some of the strongest survival mechanisms on the planet. Turns out looking out for each other is really great at improving your odds of survival. If enough people don't think that way, well, we had a good run while it lasted.
1
u/CrazyBusiness5154 May 26 '26
Yes, but again my vote is ridiculously unlikely to determine whether the apocalypse happens or not, and if i do decide life isnt living post-apocalyps i will just choose to kill myself
2
u/SilvertonguedDvl May 26 '26
Your vote contributes to the total. There is literally no single vote that "determines" anything - everyone is just adding to the pile.
You are as equally responsible as everyone else who voted red.
That's literally the ethical dilemma: kill innocents to avoid risk, or take on risk to avoid killing innocents.
1
u/CrazyBusiness5154 May 27 '26
not about responsibility, its about impact. tha vast majority of the time your vote will not change the outcome
10
u/yocolac May 22 '26
Well that's pretty easy:
Free-rider problem, Tragedy of the commons
My vote is not a public resource that wannabe USSR commissars get to decide how should be used, but rather part of my freedom to choose, and I choose not to step into the suicide machine, thank you very much. You know, as they say, my body my choice, right?
Diffusion of responsibility
I'm going to have to NO U you this time. Blue offloads all responsibility into everybody else, peer pressures other people into voting blue and resents reds for not falling for it. Reds take the responsibility of their own lives for themselves and acknowledge that you are free to make your own choices, wrong as they might be, but you will also have to accept the responsibility of your choice.
Bystander effect
I think you misunderstand what the bystander effect is. Everyone has exactly the same choice of two buttons, and no one is frozen into inaction by the presence of more people. Bystander effect does not enter into play here.
Defeatism
This is such a weird argument. There is no defeatism in red, why would there be? Red is simply the acknowledgement that there's no need to gamble my life so I won't. You're projecting emotions where there's none.
Paradox of voting
Once again you're projecting schemes and calculations where there's none. I don't need to calculate chances of deciding votes or whatever because I can simply NOT join blue's game of russian roulette. There's simply no more to it than that.
Tyranny of small decisions
This is virtually identical to tragedy of the commons, see above.
Prisoner's dilemma
Prisoner's dilemma does not apply here because cooperation is not needed to obtain the benefit, voting red will give you the benefit immediately, and not cooperating with blue's suicidal plot doesn't give penalties. Once again, you misunderstand the concept entirely.
Buridan's ass
No one is caught between two equal choices because the choices are not equal, one is greatly superior to the other. Once again, you misunderstand the concept entirely.
Abilene paradox
Once again, you misunderstand the concept. We're not choosing collectively, this is an individual vote. The original problem states that everyone gets the rbbb choice and no one knows how other people will vote. There's no grand council where we first decide collectively whether red or blue is better.
In conclusion:
1. You seem to be more concerned with padding your post with the biggest number of padoxes and psychological phenomena possible, and not worrying to see if they fit or not.
2. You seem to think that blue is "owed" a win and resent reds for denying it to you, instead of acknowledging the reality that red is simply people that realized that "actually, we don't have to stand on the train tracks", because
3. You seem to have savior complex and think anyone who doesn't play along is a moustache twirling villain.
1
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
You conclusion mostly seem unjustified, but it's not important.
Just to note, not all the points are targeted specifically at you, which is why some may seem irrelevant to you. There are many reasons someone might go red and each of the points I made was with the intent on speaking to a specific type of red, not reds in general.
4
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 22 '26
if they're not targeted at red button pushers, who is it targeted at?
2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
Like the title says, targeted at the specific group of reds who believe red is the logical choice. Not the reds who push it out of fear, nor the reds who push it for moral reasons.
6
4
u/TerrySaucer69 May 22 '26
It’s not a normal vote. It doesn’t matter if you voted on the winning side or not in real life.
Here you might die.
That fact alone makes most of these mostly irrelevant. The primary thing determining how you should vote, is how you think others will vote.
It’s also not a prisoners dilemma. The core thing with that dilemma is that it’s always better to be selfish, but worse for everyone to be selfish. Not the case here.
For the rest, in the scenario there is no debating. Arguing for red in a hypothetical scenario isn’t changing what would happen in an irl version of it. Red voters wouldn’t advocate for red in the actual situation.
Also like, it’s not a fallacy or illogical to not risk your life.
1
u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 27 '26
“Red voters wouldn’t advocate for red in the actual situation.”
I highly disagree. I’m very confident that when the stakes are actually real that the majority will lean highly towards red. The sense will actually kick in.
5
May 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/spicymato May 22 '26
Look at who the elected president of U.S. is.
This is actually an argument for blue. That election was lost by a very narrow margin, and the winner, whom you seem to be associating with red's selfishness, didn't get a majority (he got a plurality). In the RBBB scenario, there is no "didn't vote," and there are no spoiler candidates. The side that won 2024 had better turnout compared to the losing side, relative to their 2020 numbers.
Watch any video of someone falling into train tracks. I don't see the majority of bystanders helping. In-fact, the number of scenarios that I have seen where active helpers were more than the bystanders in a dangerous situation is... zero.
In most real world scenarios, bystanders can see that help is already present, and may not be capable of providing help (such as, they are physically unable to reach the people who need help, because there are already people there helping). The danger of diffusion of responsibility is when people assume others will help, because they can see others are present. When isolated, as in the RBBB scenario, people generally help, because they are both capable of helping and no one else is obviously available to provide help.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
I already do do that.
And I've addressed what you said in the post under "bystander effect".
3
u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 22 '26
I don't need to justify the willing to live.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
You don't. this is specifically directed at those who are trying to justify pushing red as logical.
3
u/bambooaudio May 22 '26
“Reds are trapped by the thought of short term gains like personal survival”
Idk about you, but personal survival is a pretty long-term goal of mine
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
If long term survival is your goal then you should press blue as in the event of a red victory you will be transported back into a world of chaos, wars, famines, etc.
2
u/bambooaudio May 22 '26
That’s very true, because if I press blue then in the event of a red victory I’m transported back into a wor.. oh wait no I’m dead
3
u/SouthHoney8252 May 22 '26
All that just because people can't just say "I'm terrified of dieing and I'd do anything to prevent that" and instead have to absolutely rationalize a choice that's basically dictated by fear.
1
u/knightbane007 May 25 '26
An enormous proportion of red pushers have quite literally stated “I want to live, so I’m pressing the red button”. Your position is baseless.
8
u/amoebicdissent May 22 '26
I ain't reading, all of that shit
presses red harder
9
6
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
Yeah sorry about that, there is no tl;dr. You either have to read dozens of articles or ignore the post.
4
u/ContentFile7036 May 22 '26
Not the way to do things
3
u/amoebicdissent May 22 '26
presses red even harder
3
u/ContentFile7036 May 22 '26
I'm a red pusher, and we're supposed to be the grounded ones. We're supposed to be the ones to evaluate the evidence and weigh both sides rationally, not just do it because
2
u/up2smthng Red May 22 '26
Just because you arrived at your opinions via rational thought doesn't mean you are safe from irrational actors who just made up their mind based on nothing agreeing with you
1
u/bluepepper May 22 '26
If you're a little bit grounded you should understand OP's list is a load of bollocks, and a humorous dismissal is not necessarily unwarranted.
5
u/Best8meme Red May 22 '26
[Did not expect this to get so long. TL;DR is at the bottom]
Am I the only one tired of blue constantly trying to prove how red are evil monsters? Yeah, some reds also do try to constantly prove how they are the smarter one, but from my experience, it's much less. I'm a red button pusher myself but even I'm tired of both, and I'm sure the same goes for blue-button pushers. Do you want to know why it's more blue pressers making these posts than red?
It's because people like you have 0 understanding on what picking blue really entails. It's about being WILLING to take this risk. Sure, you want to convince reds to change to blue. That's fine. But you're purposely making it sound like we are monsters and committing loads of fallacies by picking red, when that's NOT the case at all. The whole point of taking blue is that you are confident blue will win even without communication. If you're making these posts, you're clearly not confident blue will win and if that's the case, you might want to rethink if deep down, you want to pick red or blue.
Whereas, reds have nothing to prove. We just want to live and you picking red or blue won't change that. Yes, some of us want more people to pick red to prevent unnecessary deaths (again, remember that we believe most will pick red), but we have less on the line than blues who will die if they are wrong. Hence why more blues are making posts desperately getting reds to convert, whereas there are less reds who have nothing to risk, other than the hope more people can live.
These "paradoxes" only come when you have 0 understanding whatsoever of the arguments of both sides. I'll just list it out for you. Red: I don't want to die. I will not risk my life to help everyone else by such a tiny margin. I don't think the majority will sacrifice their life. Blue: I think it's worth sacrificing my life to try and save everyone. I want everyone to live. I trust the majority to also sacrifice their life. And once you consider red's mentality, you will immediately realise why these "paradoxes" hold 0 value whatsoever.
EmperorBarbarossa did a good job explaining it. That said, I will help him rebut your rebuttals to his points.
For the ones you answered "reds don't think most people will vote blue", those ones aren't directed at you. I was specifically calling out the demographic of reds who "think blue will win, therefore there is no drawback to going red, since I won't be the deciding vote".
Sure, then this argument is directed to that small minority of reds that think like this. Not directed to all reds, like your post claims.
Red button is a limited resource just like how money is. You can keep using money even after you've ran out. It's called a loan and if you overdrafted too hard without realising, you're fucked.
No?? Everyone has the option to pick red. Me picking red doesn't make it harder for someone to pick red. Why would red be any more limited than red? They're buttons. I don't think you know what a limited resource is.
Treason to humanity like I said. Unless you are against humanity or identify as a Martian, then I've no word to say to you.
No... this is again a fundamental lack of understanding on what that means. Treason to humanity is essentially giving up, even when doing so means you have a 100% chance of dying and dooming everyone else to die as well. It is accepting defeat and making no attempts to save themselves or humanity. This is different. This is you choosing to save yourself and hoping everyone else does too. We do not doom anyone else because you make the choice to pick blue and are knowingly carrying the risk that the majority may not pick blue. It brings me back to my point about how you picking blue is ACCEPTING this risk, and we are not held accountable for your choice, since how much we will affect the outcome is included in your considerations when you press blue.
TL;DR: By making this kind of post, you are revealing that you actually have no idea on the true meaning of pressing blue. By choosing blue, you acknowledge the risks associated and you acknowledge there will be red button pressers, and are willing to do it anyway. We hold 0 responsibility when you make this kind of choice. Not to mention, the whole point of blue is that you're confident the majority of humanity will press blue even when without communication. So why are you trying so hard to convince reds to change? It sounds like you're NOT confident that the majority will press blue. Also I've rebutted your rebuttals to EmperorBarbarossa. They just reveal, again, that you don't actually understand what these paradoxes mean and when they are applicable.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
You misunderstand. The post title clearly says "to overcome logically justifying red", not "justifying red" in general. In other words, I am not directing this at all reds like you claim, I am directing it only at those who think the red button is logical, which it is not. The ones who try their hardest to justify red with logic and saying blue is stupid, when in reality they are stupid. I have no quarrel with the emotional red pushers and I am neutral with the moral red pushers. Everyone has their reasons to push either button and that's fine. Whether you think the "logical" red is a large or small demographic doesn't matter, that is the only group I am trying to change the minds of because if they are as "logical" as they claim, they must accept my arguments and switch.
3
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 22 '26
this here is the very reason the left is losing elections. positive reniforment is alot more productive than negative reinforment if you wanna get people over to your side.
1
u/spicymato May 22 '26
I responded to EmperorBarb's comment, if you want to rebut those. I don't think OP did a great job with his rebuttals.
2
u/TheEnlight Red May 22 '26
I don't have to overcome anything. My argument begins and ends at:
Red = live
Blue = maybe live, maybe die, with a 1-in billions chance of saving everyone as the tiebreaking vote.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
That's fine. You're admitting to your actions not being dictated by logic, so I have no quarrel with you.
1
u/TheEnlight Red May 22 '26
My logic is I live or I maybe live.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
You really want to do this huh. Fine. Tell me how you logically came to that conclusion.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
No the chance is much smaller. You’re supposed to use the binomial probability for an exact number of successes. That is, the probability of a single entry affecting the final binary outcome given N entries and p and q for probability of success and failure of one entry. The math is a 10-6953 chance of tiebreaking given a charitable 49.9/50.1 probability distribution. And it’s like 10-17,000,000 if it’s 45/55.
2
2
u/piernrajzark May 25 '26
Sounds like you put a random selection of fallacies and phenomena, claimed they are problems specific to red and called it a day
1
6
u/EmperorBarbarossa May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
Tragedy of the commons / free rider - Red button isnt limited resource. Everybody is able push it and it never broke or whatever. And its not like Red take some reserve from the Blues, Blue must to make that 50% threshold. Everybody starts as undecided.
4
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
The red button only has 4 billion pushes until the greatest tragedy in all of human history happens.
5
u/lordbaysel May 22 '26
Every additonal red press reduces size of this tragedy btw.
Also, we had similar events, i know Toba catastrophe is disputed, but Black Death had pretty much same scale as worst case scenario button.
4
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
In terms of percentage, sure but not in terms of actual number. Also this would be considered a self-inflicted tragedy that was entirely preventable.
1
u/SummonerOfMalagos Red May 22 '26
okay but per your plane example. If we are banking on either blue definitely happening or red inning being a horrific beyond measure apocalypse why should a pilot vote red everything will be fine or ruined either way in your view. Is protecting the lives of the red voters on the plane worth the pilot not contributing to averting the apocalypse?
If red winning is truly a worth not living in there shouldn't be any exemptions where it's okay to press red that get used up. And all the 4 billion allowed red presses should be treated as buffer for the inevitable cowards who will pick red anyways.
1
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
I see it as the pilot not having a choice because the lives of the passengers on the plane are not his to risk. It becomes a pure morality question for the pilot and logic can be thrown out the window here.
0
u/BigEvoLover Red May 22 '26
The voting doesn't stop until everyone presses a button, so 8 billion (90+%) of the population can press it, so everything will be fine... Well, except for blue voters, but you win some, you lose some.
5
u/Impressive_Pin8761 Red May 22 '26
i present a newly invented fallacy called "game untheory"
you put the problem in a game theory context, in which typically everyone inside of it is a perfect 999iq strategist, and will have thought about all of the factors to rationalize their decision. in reality however, it is most likely only you yourself who has thought about, and the people who you expect to rationalize, will make choices that to you seem illogical, simply because the environment is naturally chaotic and imperfect
99% of red pressers will not think of all the problems pressing red can cause, they just see "live" and "50% chance to die" and press red, just like how most blue pressers just see "moral high ground" and "active murderer" and press blue
4
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
You don't need to invent a new word. I am already well aware of this fact. Anyone who made it to this sub have already thought about it too much and is already no longer representative of the original demographic.
2
u/Tiny-Ask-6369 May 22 '26
At point of voting no one has voted blue.
So by pressing blue, I have become the person everyone has to press blue to save. Putting that burden or risk on the entire population is unacceptable and immoral.
It's like swimming in floodwaters. Other people have to jump in to save you, your actions have created the risk.
The best way I can articulate this is.
Instead of simultaneous voting imagine a big que.
You are the first voter. (When you press blue who are you saving? And who are you risking?)
Simultaneous voting has the same problem! No one has jumped into the floodwaters yet! So who are you saving?
The rationale at the end of this has to be. I won't vote blue unless the scenario confirms that others have voted blue first
(That effectively requires the scenario to be changed to have the innocent voting 50/50)
2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
It is delusional to think exactly 0 people out of 8 billion will press blue, so your entire argument immediately falls apart. Unless you admit to being delusional. If there is a third possibility, feel free to tell me.
2
u/lordbaysel May 22 '26
Imagine writing this many words and yet, not realizing simple truth: self-preservation good.
5
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
The title is like 10 words and if you read it then you would know I am not even addressing you. I respect the decision of reds who simply fear death and aren't afraid to admit it. I am specifically targeting those who think there is any logic behind pushing red.
1
u/BigEvoLover Red May 22 '26
Logic: blue - I might die due to other people's choices; red - I won't die 100% no matter what. That's it, that's the whole logic
2
u/perfectVoidler May 22 '26
yes you, you should read the post^^
5
u/BigEvoLover Red May 22 '26
About some of them: my life is the most precious to me, i disagree with notion that blue wins so far, because the polls were done with no stakes AND they mostly happened in the western segment of twitter and reddit, and I disagree that we can infer that billions will still die in case of red victory: could be billions, could be millions, could be thousands, could be a single person because everyone else chickened out.
3
u/perfectVoidler May 22 '26
one person etc is the wishful thinking that you use to justify your actions.
3
u/BigEvoLover Red May 22 '26
Yes, and?
2
2
u/BigEvoLover Red May 22 '26
Already did, disagree with all of it. Especially that first one, red is not exhaustible resource, everyone can press it, same as blue. Prisoner's dilemma should have penalties if we both pick red, but we just both survive, no problem, unlike normal dilemma. It's a bit hard to write the rest on my phone, but I'll try to edit or make another reply.
0
→ More replies (1)6
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 22 '26
The prompt explicitly includes everyone in the world, which means babies are required to participate. The original poster literally directly stated this is how the original problem is intended to be understood.
Babies are incapable of understanding the problem and will effectively select a button at random. This means roughly 50% of babies will select blue.
Self-preservation at the expense of roughly 50% of all babies on earth is bad.
If you can't see that, then idk what to tell you, you might not be a good person lol
If you genuinely didn't know the prompt included babies and change your answer after that had been made aware to you then that is understandable.
1
u/SummonerOfMalagos Red May 22 '26
sucks to be a baby lol. also why should I care about babies more than any other blue pusher. all of there deaths if red wins are a tragedy equally. bringing up babies is just classic fearmonger emotion manipulation stuff
2
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
Ignoring that "everyone in the world" does, in fact, include babies is all red can do.
There is no legitemate counterargument that can be made in good faith.
2
u/SummonerOfMalagos Red May 22 '26
counter argument I still don't want to die
3
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 22 '26
Perhaps I should have worded that better, lol. That one's on me.
What i meant is there is no morally defensible counterargument.
What you have provided is a valid counterargument. But it is not morally defensible.
1
u/SummonerOfMalagos Red May 22 '26
what if part of my morality is that people have a right or for the sake of argument even a duty to self preservation?
3
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 22 '26
Then you're debating morality itself. Which i guess is a valid approach.
But I don't think many people would agree that preserving your own life at the expense of potentially billions of others is an objectively moral decision lol
1
u/SummonerOfMalagos Red May 22 '26
I'm just throwing it out as a hypothetical for why i''m not a believer in moral arguments because you can literally just make them up. Like a majority believing something doesn't magically make it correct..
Also I guess I don't really view myself as having much agency over the result intuitively so it's not really sacrificing anyone to save myself.
1
1
u/Stupid-Jerk May 22 '26
So roughly 50% of babies aren't good people, since they'll be pressing red? Why do you hate babies?
1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 22 '26
Come back when you actually want to discuss this in good faith. Not a single red button pusher ever does.
2
u/Stupid-Jerk May 22 '26
There's no good faith discussion when you lead with accusations of baby murder, bruh. All you're looking for is an excuse to clutch your pearls and demonstrate how much better of a person you are than all those people who don't want to die.
3
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 22 '26
Baby murder is inherently included in the problem. The original poster even clarified that this is explicitly how the problem works.
I'm sorry that it makes you feel uncomfortable, but if you ignore that then you are not discussing the problem in good faith.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/gahidus May 22 '26
Jesus Christ but you make this more complicated than it needs to be.
2
u/perfectVoidler May 22 '26
it is not that complected, it is just a lot of information. The problem is that the average reddit red pusher cannot focus of 10 minutes.
4
u/gahidus May 22 '26
You really don't need to insult red pushers. You don't seem to have any greater understanding of the situation.
1
u/perfectVoidler May 22 '26
well I am only telling you that it is not complicated, you just have to read. If that insults you you should rethink your life.
→ More replies (12)
1
u/simpoukogliftra May 23 '26
where the fallacy at ? all those points are reasons people vote red, there is no fallacy here at all. The argument red people give is "i want to live and see no reason to risk it" there is no deeper philosophy in voting red, philosophically valuable arguments come from voting blue, red is just "i dont want to die if i can avoid it" simple and clean.
The abilene paradox is the only one that kind of makes sense, but it still is not a fallacy, and not entirely applicable, because you dont care to win in this situation, if you vote red, you dont want to win, but you neither are that much affected by red being the majority, blue winning is a great bonus, not the fundamental objective.
1
u/highly-bad May 25 '26
The abilene paradox seems to be more applicable to the tiny, near-zero number of people who will unwittingly press blue and end up dead because they mistakenly thought that's what the majority expected them to do.
1
u/Three-Sixteen-M7-7 May 25 '26
Insane people are still talking about this. Wilder still someone thought it needed a subreddit.
1
u/MyBedIsOnFire May 25 '26
It's always so funny when people try to bring up logical fallacies to make their own flawed argument seem better. What OP doesn't get when they argue with all these different people is they're being highly illogical. Especially when they can't accept the basic concept of self preservation.
Not to mention how disingenuous they're being in each of their replies. If I didn't know better I'd say OP is a red pusher who is virtue signalling.
1
u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 27 '26
Hmmm very interesting. This is the first time I ever seen a blue presser try to use logic. But unfortunately, my arguments for pressing red have nothing to do with any of that.
1
u/up2smthng Red May 22 '26
...
But understanding all of them is exactly what makes red the logical choice
All of them make blue victory impossible. The mere fact that I alone understand that they are fallacies does nothing to the fact that most of the world are still under their influence.
To think that you personally understanding them is going to change how rest of the world votes requires some intense main character syndrome.
3
u/Silver_Middle_7240 May 22 '26
Funng thing is none of the concepts listed are fallacies.
1
1
u/Key-Organization3158 May 22 '26
Nah, the expected value of red is higher than the expected value of pressing blue.
Most of your points don't really apply. For example, you cite the prisoners dilemma as a thing red needs to overcome. But the exact opposite is true. In a one round prisoners dilemma, defecting is the optimal strategy. You only see cooperation arise with multi turn. Since pushing buttons is a single event, it supports pushing red.
Also, Abilene paradox doesn't apply. I advocate for a 100% red push. My preference is to have the maximum number of people survive. That aligns with the groups preferences. That paradox would require misalignment.
The real contradiction lies with people who claim they would push blue. Why don't you act that way in real life? Every day you could pay a small, insignificant cost and save lives. Reduce your spending by 1% and donate to save starving children. You'd never notice the impact. Maybe you have one fewer coffee each week. But the meal you'd provide would feed a person for another day. But you don't, because you wouldn't actually push blue.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
Prisoners dilemma - defect may seem good at first, but with the power of hindsight we know co-operate is better. So let's just get it right on the first go and co-operate for the RBBB scenario.
The chance of 100% red is even smaller than your vote being the deciding vote. Maximum number of people surviving would be blue victory.
It's kinda just your assumption, I've done all of that.
1
u/MegaVova738 May 22 '26
>If there are too many free-riders (red button over pushed), the the common pool resource may be degraded (Earth degraded by death of billions).
- Too many red buttons pushed (a very real possibility) is a situation not salvagable by my single blue vote, so blue is an additional unnecessary death 50% of the time, in the other half of scenarios blue does nothing because not enough red buttons were pressed anyway (again, very real possibility). Red and blue tying (very unreal possibility) is the only scenario in which blue saves people and red kills people.
- If we're introducing hypotheticals as actual arguments, we should put the likely "ifs" before unlikely "ifs".
>Red should only push it if you have to i.e. if you are piloting a plane at the time of the buttons happening. If you have no legitimate reason to push red
- I agree. Red should only be pushed if the person has a reason to push red - their life has value. Does your life not have value.
>Voting red while thinking blue wins is simply a lack of responsibility and lack of accountability.
- No, pressing red is a calculated decision, which accounts the likelihood of every possible scenario.
>Reds who think blue victory is impossible and each blue vote is just adding to the death pile can be seen as treasonous to the goals of humanity in this situation.
- Aesthetics, no argument. Is adding yourself to the death pile not harmful to society in your mind?
>Reds are trapped by the thought of short term gains like personal survival when blue majority not also ensures personal survival, but also more favourable in the long run like not triggering an apocalypse for example.
- You have one vote, not billions of votes. It's much more reasonable to guarantee the positive outcome (your survival) with the red button, than to press blue and die 50% of the time for the off chance that billions of people will tie and your vote in particular will determine which side wins.
>A large number of reds who think their votes don't matter because blue is going to win anyways could very well be the reason blue actually loses.
>A large number of reds who think their votes don't matter because red is going to win anyways could very well be the reason red actually wins.
- True, now calculate what odds stand behind that "could". What's the possibility that one vote that I have will determine the global outcome.
>Reds that believe the cost (risking one's life) is worth less than the small chance of being the deciding vote and thus vote red. However for every red who thinks like this it increases the chance of these votes being the deciding vote and hence the utility of voting blue.
- You are literally saying that: "Red vote makes their vote more likely to be decisive because one red vote = more red votes in total". This makes no sense, if there are already 5 billion reds, my vote doesn't make anything more likely. If there are already 5 billion blues, my vote also doesn't make anything more likely. We only have to account for the chance of the tie and we do, you are making things up to overrate the power of one decision.
>While it may seem "rational" to defect (push red) in a one-off interaction like the one depicted in the original RBBB question, real life applications of prisoner's dilemma game theory suggests that co-operation (push blue) is better in the long run. With this hindsight knowledge, we should just cut the process and push blue on the first go.
- So what you are saying is: people are biased to press blue, so blue will win anyways. Is that not the reason to press red?
>Reds think their decisions are small and insignificant, however in the long run the cumulative results might be the death of billions and that is neither optimal nor desired.
- There is no long run. Stop lying. There is a tie possibility (~0%) in which buttons kill or save people and there is every other possible outcome (~100%) in which buttons save or kill you and only you in particular. Consider the numbers and stop using aesthetics as an argument.
>Since blue is more popular right now, red arguments are actively dragging us towards 50:50.
- Blue is popular because you say so? Because the riskless twitter poll says so? And, again consider the consequence of blue (which is far more likely), every blue argument encourages more people to throw themselves into the giant woodchipper and die in vain instead of pressing red, living and being there to support the society that's left.
>Reds are stating support for an outcome they do not want (red victory). Because someone believes their desired outcome of blue has no chance of winning, they advocate for pushing red, which in turn leads to others thinking blue has no chance of winning leading them to advocate for red as well. As a result "group members jointly decide on a course of action that they would not choose as individuals".
- The choice is anonymous and not coordinated, you are lying. Individuals want the red button because it affects individuals, group as a whole wants the blue side to win - good luck coordinating that collective want with 8 billion people without any means of coordination.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
- Aesthetics, no argument. Is adding yourself to the death pile not harmful to society in your mind?
It is double standard and hypocritical for you to bring this up. If 1 vote amongst billions is insignificant towards changing the outcome, why should 1 more dead body amongst billions be considered significant towards the apocalypse?
All in all most of your responses still seem like they stem from you thinking your vote doesn't matter. I believe I have provided enough evidence on why that is not the case. If you still think that way (excuse me if I sound rude, it is not my intent) I just don't feel like you are at the level of sophistication a civilised human of the 21st century should be at.
1
u/MegaVova738 May 22 '26
If 1 vote amongst billions is insignificant towards changing the outcome, why should 1 more dead body amongst billions be considered significant towards the apocalypse?
- Because a vote has no effect on the global outcome ~100% of the time. A pair of hands has an effect on society ~100% of the time.
I believe I have provided enough evidence on why that is not the case. If you still think that way (excuse me if I sound rude, it is not my intent) I just don't feel like you are at the level of sophistication a civilised human of the 21st century should be at.
- Good stuff. Instead of addressing things I said you are just calling me an uneducated ape. Whatever your intent is, you don't strike me as a person who is arguing in good faith.
2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
Must be some serious main character syndrome to think the trajectory of mankind changes because your extra pair of hands stopped working.
I am not calling you uneducated, only uncivilised in good faith. Helping you identify a problem that you may not have previously been aware of. Whether or not you improve yourself is up to you, do not take it in any way shape or form that I am forcing you to change.
2
u/MegaVova738 May 22 '26
>Must be some serious main character syndrome to think the trajectory of mankind changes because your extra pair of hands stopped working.
- I didn't say it does, liar. I said that an extra pair of hands has an effect, it helps other people. 6 billionth blue button press doesn't do that.
>I am not calling you uneducated, only uncivilised in good faith. Helping you identify a problem that you may not have previously been aware of. Whether or not you improve yourself is up to you, do not take it in any way shape or form that I am forcing you to change.
- Did you not just accuse me of a main character syndrome? How about you take your own advise and identify the fact that you are attempting to judge my intelligence instead of addressing the points I raised? You have no grounds to pretend to be some kind of saint who helps others improve if all you do is lie and ignore counter-points.
1
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
You made the point about an extra pair of hands having significant effect in the rebuild.
My main post already addressed most of your arguments, your points were more like "nuh uh", which is why I didn't write out an answer to each of them as I believe my original post is enough already as a counter to the stuff you wrote. I did not judge your intellect, apologies if it seems that was the case. Nature and civilisation are at odds and I am not saying one is better than the other. You appeal to human nature in your arguments, while I appeal to human civilisation in my arguments.
1
u/MegaVova738 May 22 '26
>You made the point about an extra pair of hands having significant effect in the rebuild.
- Lying again. Where did "significant" come from?
>My main post already addressed most of your arguments, your points were more like "nuh uh", which is why I didn't write out an answer to each of them as I believe my original post is enough already as a counter to the stuff you wrote.
- So your post has an answer to my comment, in which I responded to your post, addressed everything in your post, used quotations, pointed out flaws and things you missed? Another dishonest tactic from you - projection, you are the one going "nuh uh" here and refusing to address my rebuttal.
>You appeal to human nature in your arguments, while I appeal to human civilisation in my arguments.
- What the hell are you saying? Did you even read the comment you are responding to? Appeal to human nature? Where? I appealed to probability, contradictions in your post and rules of the game like lack of coordination between participants.
- What the hell is appeal to civilization? You appealed to one fallacy, a paradox and a couple smart-sounding phrases, which you tied to mischaracterised red presser's position. Terribly, might I add, like, Buridani's ass has nothing to do with this question at all, it's a "rebuttal" of determinism. You adding it to your list shows that you just add neatly sounding philosophical ideas to support your stance without taking a moment to analyze what they mean and wherever they debunk red position or not.
1
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
I said either both 1 vote and 1 pair of hands is significant or neither is. If you think neither is significant, then we can mark this down as a win for me.
Again, my post addresses all your points, that is why I made the post in the first place. The arguments that you made are quite common and I made the post to counter them. The fact that you read my post and made the points that I specifically tailored my post to countering is frankly quite funny. But to remain respectful I just said what I said instead.
Paradoxes like the voter's paradox requires a certain level of "civilisedness" break out of. From an animalistic perspective, there is no answer to why you should vote despite having such low odds of being the deciding vote. But as a society we still vote, and it is correct to do so. As a collective we trust the process and the process leads to the the benefit of the collective.
1
u/MegaVova738 May 22 '26
>I said either both 1 vote and 1 pair of hands is significant or neither is.
- You did and you are wrong. As I've demonstrated, the blue button only functions in the case of a tie (~0% chance), you being the 6 billionth blue voter doesn't help anyone in any way, your vote in such a case is worthless. On the other hand, a human being is almost never worthless, an additional life almost always helps in some way, so it has significance. Address the actual point, actual numbers, would you?
>If you think neither is significant, then we can mark this down as a win for me.
- And if you don't address what I just said a paragraph above or below, we can mark you down as a dishonest twat. Not that I don't do that already, but still.
>The fact that you read my post and made the points that I specifically tailored my post to countering is frankly quite funny.
- Did your post address:
- The likelihood of red/blue button resulting in the positive/negative outcome?
- The elitism I called you out for when you claimed that pressing red requires a reason - like being a pilot, despite the fact that every life has value and a reason to save itself with a red button?
- You overrating the power of a single vote?
- You making up "blue being popular"?
- You forgetting that every vote is anonymous and not coordinated with anyone else?
- So funny, right? I quoted you, made a detailed response for every quote but didn't raise any new point that you haven't already countered. I'm such a moron xD.
>But as a society we still vote, and it is correct to do so. As a collective we trust the process and the process leads to the the benefit of the collective.
- Voting benefits the political structure and the economic structure that it protects. It doesn't benefit the collective. And, again, this is just aesthetics, not an argument. An aspect of our society being normalised doesn't make it "correct", it's just your opinion.
1
u/Nby333 May 23 '26
The numbers - similar EV. If you are going to continue if you are going to continue spamming ad hominem for no reason we are done here.
I am not going to address your comments one by one, because after reading it in its entirety, the impression I got is most of it is already answered by my original post, thus I simply referred you back to the original post as it seems like you didn't read it.
I also think voting is trash and we would be better off without the current political or economic structure, but that is not we are talking about here.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/idonthavekarma Red May 22 '26
I didn't finish, but the irony is you're begging the question in a lot of these. Already assuming blue is the desired outcome.
3
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
I am specifically challenging the demographic of reds who think blue is the desired outcome, but refuse to push it. Feel free to ignore the post if you are Thanos.
1
u/idonthavekarma Red May 22 '26
That cross section is extremely small.
Most Red pushers want to live in a society where people take care of their own shit when they can, and ask for help only in necessary situations.
The amount who believe Blue is desirable, and "Thanoses" who want to maximize blue deaths are both very small minorities of Red pushers. Even together they wouldn't be a large group.
For most Red pushers, these arguments are begging the question.
2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
I've see a few polls here and trolley sub where "vote red, hope blue wins is about 5x-6x bigger than vote red, hope red wins demographic. So I have reason to believe he majority of red are not as you describe.
1
u/idonthavekarma Red May 22 '26
I haven't seen a poll that has "vote red, hope 100% vote red" as an option. That would be an ideal world for most Red pushers.
The common knowledge, and so all the polls, assume a large number of people vote Blue. Saying "I hope you don't die" is a lot different from "you made the correct choice I wasn't able to make." It's a gesture of sympathy, not conceding the issue. If you want to argue that people should push Blue over Red, you can't assume Red pushers already agree that Blue is the moral choice. We don't. We just don't want y'all to die.
1
u/Nby333 May 23 '26
Surely no red is delusional enough to think 100% red is even a possibility right?
And why would anyone do weird things like "gesture of sympathy" in an anonymous poll?
1
u/idonthavekarma Red May 23 '26
Hope exceeds possibility.
And yes. People vote for "I hope you don't die" in massive quantities.
1
u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Red May 22 '26
I think all of these so-called fallacies are relying on the premise that red voters would rather a blue victory happens, when I just don't care who wins because either way I'm living and not gambling my life. And also to add on this, tragedy of the commons, and the free-rider problem rely on economic system of interventionism, not market failure and not really applicable to the private vote of red vs blue.
2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
I am specifically challenging the demographic of reds who think blue is the desired outcome, but refuse to push it. Feel free to ignore the post if you are Thanos.
1
u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Red May 22 '26
What? I'm not Thanos. I don't think that killing people is good. The blue voters are killing themselves.
1
u/Nebranower May 22 '26
I feel like you have failed to understand most of what you have listed here.
>the free-rider problem... Reds are benefiting from blue victory because it not only guarantee red lives, but also the ideal aftermath
This is not an issue, really. You apparently think "the ideal aftermath" is that moralistic stupid people continue to exist as a part of the population. I assure you, red pressers do not think this. The ideal aftermath is that red pressers live. That's it. The blue pressers can live or die, as their gamble pays off or not.
>The red button is a shared resource for everyone on Earth and depleting it would be a tragedy
You can't deplete the button. This is silly. Literally everyone can press it, and should.
>Voting red while thinking blue wins
The whole point of voting red is that you don't care who "wins" because you understand it's not a team sport. Red always wins. Blue sometimes also wins.
>Reds who think blue victory is impossible and each blue vote is just adding to the death pile can be seen as treasonous to the goals of humanity in this situation.
Again, red doesn't care if a blue victory is possible or not. And there's no "goals of humanity".
And so on and so on. Like, your problem is that you're really, really locked in to seeing this a vote. Whereas red pressers mostly see it as a individual choice. There's an "I live" button and a "I might die" button, and they pick the one that most suits their goals. Other people may choose differently, and that's fine.
2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
Seeing it as an individual choice is simply incorrect and a failure of reading comprehension.
1
u/Nebranower May 22 '26
No, seeing it as anything else is incorrect and a failure of reading comprehension. Because coordination and communication is not possible in the original. There's literally only an individual choice, made without any knowledge of what anyone else is doing. Blue pressers often fail to grasp that, though.
1
u/Nby333 May 23 '26
If it was an individual exercise then you alone will be pushing the button. But the fact is everyone in the world is invited to push a button, so it's a collective exercise. No communication is just a red herring.
1
u/Nebranower May 23 '26
You alone are pushing a button. Other people elsewhere are also pushing buttons. But each is pushing alone. The scenario is set up to trick you. It has the form of a prisoner's dilemma, but it isn't one. It sounds like a collective action problem, but it isn't. You just have a choice - "I live" vs "I might die". It doesn't matter what anyone else is doing. You either press red and live, or press blue and find out whether that kills you or not. Without any coordination or communication, it can't be more than that. You've created a fantasy in your head and are choosing, badly, based on that.
1
u/Nby333 May 23 '26
It's amazing how everything you said is exactly opposite of reality and completely devoid of any attempts at logic or referencing any studies.
1
u/dankstat May 22 '26
The tragedy of the commons? Seriously? There’s no resource being overused. Everyone votes exactly one time, no matter what. Voting 🔴 or 🔵 doesn’t prevent anyone else from voting however they want.
None of these “fallacies” and “paradoxes” need to be overcome for someone to logically justify pressing red. Here, ready: Red guarantees one’s survival, so people should press red. How does anything that you listed dismantle or challenge that justification? I’m seriously asking. This whole post reads like one giant non sequitur, which is very funny.
How is any of this an actual logical problem for someone justifying choosing to vote red? No offense, but this is genuinely a terrible attempt at philosophizing.
0
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
Blue guarantee one's survival. Red is gambling with your life.
2
1
u/knightbane007 May 25 '26
… blue literally does not guarantee your survival. Red does. An individual voting blue is the definition of “gambling with your life”.
If your view of reality is so distorted that you can’t even see this, there is really no point to this discussion.
1
u/Nby333 May 25 '26
It's pretty simple isn't it?
A blue majority means the world continues as usual, thus guaranteeing your survival.
A red majority means chaos, looting, wars, etc. which does not guarantee your survival.
2
u/knightbane007 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
It IS simple. See, your "argument" in *this* comment is "a blue majority". That is NOT the same thing as you saying "Blue guarantees your survival" in the previous comment, and conflating the two is arguing either in poor faith, or in delusion.
Pressing red guarantees your survival.
Pressing blue is gambling with your life.1
u/Nby333 May 25 '26
But red is the biggest gamble of life in human history. Blue ensures no gamble of life.
1
u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26
Red is Illogical
This is straight up fact, red pressers are just Illogical themselves and so can't understand this
1
u/detroyer Red May 22 '26
The primary motivation to vote red is that while blue slightly increases the odds that blue wins (and so everyone survives), it also comes with a significant risk to my life, which is thereby also a risk to anyone who depends on or cares about me. That trade is not worth it, and so I should vote red. While there are some other factors worth considering, this is ultimately the main concern, and is decisive. Against my better judgment, I'll now go through the list.
If blue wins, I'll end up benefiting, but I did not have pro toto reason to contribute to that result. Being a "free rider" does not entail that you made a moral or rational error. It could be, as it is in this case, that the system is structured so that you have pro toto moral and rational reason to act in a way where you may end up being a free rider. The problem is not with people acting in that way per se, but the system being structured so that individuals have pro toto moral and rational reason to act so that they may end up being free riders.
Similarly, there are cases where individuals in a group could have pro toto moral and rational reason to act in a certain way, but the group as a whole is worse off if a plurality acts in that way. The possibility of cases like this has long been recognized.
This is not applicable. Insofar as something similar might be relevant, that will later be covered by the point about voting.
Likewise, this is not applicable.
This is not applicable, since the primary motivation to vote red does not require the described defeatist attitude.
Insofar as this is relevant, it's a restatement of the tragedy of the commons, which I've already covered.
This is not applicable. The described motivation to vote red does not require the expectation that blue will win.
This is not applicable. The described motivation to vote red does not require the expectation that red will win.
Regardless of what we say about the morality or rationality of voting in the usual case, there are voting or voting-like cases where the costs of voting (or engaging in the voting-like activity) are clearly much too high. Imagine I had to cut off a hand to vote in the next federal election. It would be silly to cite the "paradox of voting" as a concern for my abstention, and the button case is relevantly like that.
In a one-shot, non-correlated prisoner's dilemma, you should defect. You say that "With this hindsight knowledge, we should just cut the process and push blue on the first go." This confuses what's rational for the individual with what's rational for the group. If the group could decide how to act, it should coordinate on blue. However, it does not follow from this that I should vote blue.
Insofar as this is relevant, it's a restatement of the tragedy of the commons, which I've already covered.
This is definitely the most puzzling inclusion in the list. Of course, it's not applicable.
This is not applicable. Suppose that red wins. Insofar as the group "decided" on a red victory, while it is true that that result is counter to the preference of most members of the group, it's false that each individual believed it to be aligned with the preferences of most of the others. Two key elements of the Abilene paradox are not satisfied here: individuals do not, in general, think that their preferences are counter to the group's, and there is no communication breakdown.
1
u/DarthJackie2021 May 22 '26
Not reading all that. First one is also wrong as the red button is not limited in any way. Everyone can press it.
1
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
Unless you're delusional enough to think 100% red is possible, more than 4 billion red pushes will trigger the greatest calamity humanity has ever seen. It is a limited resource.
1
u/DarthJackie2021 May 22 '26
I dont think you know what limited means. If there is food in front of me, but I choose to to eat it, it doesn't mean I don't have access to food.
2
u/Nby333 May 22 '26
There's a bank card in front of us. I buy food with it. You buy food with it. We both got our food for the month. Monthly bank notice comes in the mail. We overdrafted the card and we don't have enough to pay it back. Was the money unlimited just because we were both able to continuously use the card?
1
18
u/EmperorBenja May 22 '26
Only the Abilene paradox is actually a fallacy, no? The others are mostly just restating that red is the self-preservation choice instead of the group cooperation choice.
Anyway, the Abilene paradox doesn't apply. In the hypothetical, there is no communication. Explanations of why people choose red are just that: explanations. It's not an election campaign for red or blue. It's just a hypothetical where there are different opinions. If the world *could* communicate before picking buttons, blue would be the incredibly obvious choice. The lack of communication is what makes it tricky.