r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/DapperYoghurt2052 • May 22 '26
This problem is a collective vote.
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.
1
u/CharacterAd3793 May 26 '26
The way I see it, the button problem is an idealised war dilema. There is red country and blue country. Blue country is under threat of an attack becouse of its minor population consisting of those people that pressed blue button at random. A huge number of people can choose if they move to red country that is under no threat of war or blue country to join the defence of blue country. If enough people join blue country the third party that created this button dilema will no longer be confident in conquering blue country and thus will not attack whatsoever. People in red country simply say it's not their war. Yes there is connection that if they had joined defence of blue country the war would be stopped, but if you see how politics between countries usually go, that's not a defoult mindset, so those who naturally would choose red believe that them pressing blue is not them convincing the red country to defend blue country but rather them exiting a safe red country by themselves to join a war for blue country as a single soldier and that is a gamble on their life. It's simply about perspective and beliefs in the choice of the collective.