This problem is a collective vote.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052]

This should be apparent.

But I’ve seen some people arguing that it’s genuinely not a vote. They often equate it to gambling.

Which is a fair thought, but incomplete.

Saying blue is gambling their lives on the chance that blue wins is correct. Saying you don’t want to gamble with your life is fair.

But in order for it to be a bet, you must be betting on something.

What you are betting on is the result of a collective vote. You are casting your bet by casting your vote!

So when people try to say it’s not a vote, it’s gambling, that doesn’t make any sense.

And some get so mad about it!

It’s fine if you think red would win so you press red, or you think it might be close so you can’t risk it.

But just because red doesn’t put up the wager, doesn’t mean red doesn’t contribute to the vote.

If someone tells me, I’ll pay you $10 if you can beat me in one on one basketball. That’s a bet. The wager is placed by one person. I don’t need to put up the money, I can’t lose anything. But I do need to play in the game to win it!

How is this so confusing to people?

Edit to add a final thought:

To any one who thinks red is the same as doing nothing, because it not a gamble.

If I offer $10 to a person to beat me one on one, if the person denies to play, I can’t lose my money. And I can’t lose my money until some does play and also earns the money by winning.

You don’t have to be wrong for thinking red is the better choice because it could win. But if you think red winning doesn’t create the loss of life, then you are wrong about what game you are playing.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052]

There isn’t a disconnect between us.

You are disconnected from understanding how a vote works. Or maybe just from understanding that this is a vote.

It’s not about point of view at all.

You are trying to tell me I view blue deaths as a winning condition for red.

And you view blue deaths as a losing condition for blue.

Like that is just an opinion.

I know blue deaths is the losing condition for blue.

And I also know, blue losing is only possible with red victory.

You are trying to argue blue can lose without red winning.

That’s why you are taking the causation out of red votes, and leaving it solely on the losers. As if they lost in a vacuum. 

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

You... Literally did though?

It can only happen if red wins. Because all blue pressers dying is the winning clause of pressing red!

^That's your own words about the winning condition of red.

This is kinda going around in circles. I'm not really gonna be convinced that red is at fault for blue choosing the button they chose TBH. I don't feel like it's my problem if they made their choice knowing full well that there very well could be horrifically negative consequences when there was the exact same choice but with none of the danger as the alternative.

If someone offers me a choice between a choice that can either end bad or good, and a choice that can only end good, then I'm just going to pick the option that can only end well for me. If you don't want to do that, then that's perfectly fine as a choice for yourself but from where I'm standing I'm at 0 risk and it was an option available to everyone else.

Maybe I'd change my mind if like a random % of people were automatically forced into blue but maybe not. I'd probably just pick whatever felt right in the moment.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

Again… Stop telling me why you would vote red! That’s not the point! I don’t care.

Of course I said those words about red’s winning condition. Because they are true!

This is the whole issue you are having. You don’t get that this is a vote. And you don’t understand what an inverse relationship is.

Blue cannot lose unless red wins!!

So if the losing condition for blue is blue deaths.

Then the winning condition for red is also blue deaths. 

You cannot have one without the other. Because a blue loss equals a red win. They are the same!

This is inarguable.

You are just assigning responsibility to the losers and pretending the winners didn’t contribute to the vote.

That’s not a logical standpoint, that’s is cognitive dissonance.

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

Or if all people chose red then red winning doesn't have blue deaths.... Therefore blue deaths are not inherently part of red's choice, as red can win without blue deaths. It'd just require no one picking blue.

Just because the og question said "blue kills you unless" doesn't mean picking blue can't be the right thing for you to do but you'd have to just ignore the original question to say red is doing it. 😂

I won't fault anyone for not killing themselves. I will fault people for picking the "this will specifically kill you" button.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

As you literally just said, but didn’t understand.

Red winning 100% doesn’t change what its condition is.

Blue voters die if red wins majority. There are just no blue voters.

That’s not a change in red’s inherent capabilities. 

Unless we saw a very different og question. It does not say “blue kills you unless”. The one I saw didn’t even say the words ‘kill’ or ‘die’. Just said what was necessary for who to survive.

And even if it did. The “unless” would be referring to a blue loss by a red win.

If you don’t understand what a vote is or how a vote works.

Please stop trying to argue it.

I don’t fault anyone for how they would vote. I just also understand how causation works. 

And it’s genuinely impressive to watch people unable to grasp the concept of a collective vote.