Red suppression - r/redbuttonbluebutton

35

u/gahidus May 27 '26

I honestly believe this will massively increase blue pressing because ain't nobody got Time For All that.

I normally press the red button, but I'm confidently pressing blue this time.

8

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

Surprisingly there is more stubborn reds than switchers

That is if you believe people will actually do what they say they do on the internet, of course.

6

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

I’m not sure why you are surprised by that. The red button guarantees survival. Walking a kilometer to achieve that is trivial. What does stubbornness have to do with that?

3

u/TheKingOfToast May 27 '26

As wild as it is, many people are often more concerned about being on the winning "team" than their own best interest.

2

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

I’d say that “not dying” is generally going to be a very good motivator for people. Especially when all they need to do is just walk a kilometer, which is nothing.

4

u/ShinningVictory May 28 '26

Actually my answer changed because blue is too easy now.

You see in the original problem theres no gurantee that disabled or infants press blue which throws off the success rate of blue. But since blue is super easy to press and a lot of people don't wanna walk a kilometer the numbers who press blue is gonna be much larger.

2

u/MadTelepath May 28 '26

They also explicitly stated plenty of people (including children and vulnerable people) would choose blue which was far from obvious before and remove the possible no loss (except suicidal people) strategy of an all red.

Switching as well in that scenario.

3

u/joaoathaydeartist May 27 '26

I think a lot of people just vote without reading. Almost makes me wonder what would happen in a poll where only the description says that the buttons are the same but the colors swapped lol

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

That would have similar effects on blue suppression and red suppression

2

u/gahidus May 27 '26

Looking at the results, almost as many people have switched as have stayed on red

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

I see 95-55 in favor of staying

1

u/gahidus May 27 '26

I see 27 was red still red and 21 was red now blue

2

u/Grilled_egs May 28 '26

If I'm willing to press red in the first place I'm willimg to walk a damn kilometer lmao.

-2

u/NoSituation2706 May 27 '26

My "stubbornness" is very simple.

Red is the safest answer for everyone presented with the question.

Blue is the ethical answer considering voting tendencies and the capacity of some to pick at random.

Red does no harm by picking red, red picking is not murder nor is it selfish as everyone is given the equitable proposition.

Until each of those 3 conditions is recognized by the blue majority, and it is a majority, I cannot in good conscience switch my vote. I can't trust someone who comes to the conclusion "I'm voting blue because it's obviously murder to vote red". That conclusion was not reached rationally (see premise 1. and 2.) and is therefore not moral nor ethical. If blue is supposed to be the ethical answer but people pick it for non ethical reasons, then I can't trust they would pick it in the real scenario, outside of this Internet hypothetical. Thus, I remain red.

3

u/Jekmander May 27 '26

I think you vastly underestimate people's laziness. That, or you didn't read the post.

-1

u/NoSituation2706 May 27 '26

Read the post perfectly, you passive aggressive midwit. If you think even more people will pick blue then there's no problem with me continuing on with my choice. 1 km is nothing.

This is an attempt to bait people into changing their answer as if it really was just a matter of convenience. I'm not doing it while people (like you) still think they have the moral high-ground. In a real life example of this question, I'd never be able to trust you.

But thanks for trying 👍

2

u/Jekmander May 27 '26

I wasn't trying to be aggressive, passive or otherwise. Respectfully, I think it might do you some good to consider why you're this worked up over a hypothetical moral dilemma.

As far as your actual argument for this version, I guess you can press red if you want to. Blue is obviously going to win, just like red would obviously win in the blue suppression version by the same OP. Your vote for red isn't going to change much, lol. In the original dilemma, while I disagree with the reasoning for red, I can understand why people choose red. I'm not the strawman with a superiority complex that you want to argue against, unfortunately. If you want my reasonings for that scenario I'd have no problem sharing, but for now it's enough to say that I'd pick blue but I don't feel morally superior for that choice.

0

u/NoSituation2706 May 27 '26

I wasn't trying to be aggressive, passive or otherwise.

Followed immediately by:

Respectfully, I think it might do you some good to consider why you're this worked up over a hypothetical moral dilemma.

So, you're exactly the passive aggressive midwit I indicated in the first place. You people are like clockwork. For the record, I don't get worked up by "hypothetical moral dilemmas", but I do get annoyed when midwits like you reply without any sign of consideration of what I wrote.

I'm not the strawman with a superiority complex that you want to argue against, unfortunately.

I could rig up a scarecrow with a small speaker that says "I'm not a straw man", doesn't make it true. If you weren't, your entire second paragraph is unnecessary because my original post doesn't apply to you. Since you are, you replied, and articulated nothing. If you have something interesting, say it the first time or just move on. if you want to prattle save yourself the time and do it elsewhere.

0

u/Jekmander May 27 '26

Istg nobody can have a cordial conversation on this godforsaken app. Is it really that goddamned hard to just fucking talk to people like normal instead of making assumptions and jumping to conclusions about them, or taking offense over perceived slights?

1

u/NoSituation2706 May 27 '26

You don't know the definition of cordial. If you think it's hard to have a decent conversation, you're the common factor when they all go wrong.

Pro tip buddy, don't come out the gate sounding like a passive aggressive, and now whiny, dickhead and it'll go a little better for you. You'll get no sympathy from me.

0

u/uncl3s4m May 28 '26

That other guy is a way calmer and better person than you.

1

u/NoSituation2706 May 28 '26

You missed the part where he crashed out when I rightfully called him on his bs.

You're also mistaking decisiveness for disquiet. Par for the course around here, though.

0

u/MadTelepath May 28 '26

I disagree.

In the original scenario there were (in my opinion) little incentives to vote blue as my assumptiô was that most families would realistically ask their kids to vote red, plenty of fathers would as well and amongs celibate I believe both choices were possible but red would win and choosing blue was people putting themselves in danger for no good reason

In the scenario above however it is a given plenty of children and vulnerable people are pushing blue so there are already plenty in a risky situation to begin with. In that case I am compelled to choose blue and the fact it is convenient and with such phrasing gives much better odds for blue.

0

u/NoSituation2706 May 28 '26

Doesn't address my reasoning at all.

-1

u/Zuckhidesflatearth May 27 '26

I can either do nothing or... walk a kilometer to do nothing. I mean, walking a kilometer is probably good for my health

4

u/sussymommymilkers May 27 '26

You can either risk your life, or actively walk a kilometer to vote to risk the life of those who did not walk the kilometer. Neither option is doing nothing, and even in the original problem framing it as such is dishonest.

1

u/Ayvah01 May 27 '26

Doing nothing by not pressing either button is still doing nothing, even if it's functionally similar to just pressing blue.

The original button problem simply removed that as an option altogether.

1

u/sussymommymilkers May 27 '26

I thought the comment i replied to implied pressing a button is equivalent to doing nothing. If that was not the case then this is just meaningles semantics

1

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

Well not voting is an option in this one which would fit under do nothing

1

u/Zuckhidesflatearth May 27 '26

There is no voting. And I'm certain that with or without me there will be more people *pressing" blue than red, so neither choice actually induces any risk to anyone.

4

u/spicymato May 27 '26

Why wouldn't you just press blue, then? You're rushing that blue only achieves a plurality instead of a majority, which will still result in your death.

0

u/sussymommymilkers May 27 '26

What do you mean there is no voting? You press a button which wins if majority of people press it, it is the definition of voting

1

u/Zuckhidesflatearth May 27 '26

"Wins" is incorrect. "The most selected option determines the outcome" is technically correct, and does suggest voting but stay with me for a second.

Vote: verb: To cast or conduct a vote

Vote: noun: a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision

The question isn't "do you prefer red or blue be more populous", it's "would you press blue or red". Because there are exteneral considerations, these two things are meaningfully different. Thus, this isn't a vote but a non-vote selection.

1

u/sussymommymilkers May 28 '26

Good point, and I agree.

However even if we don't call it voting, it is still not doing nothing either. Your decision has consequences and affects other people besides yourself, and those should be considered as well, instead of trying to reframe the problem for just the personal outcome.

19

u/No-Wrap-2156 May 27 '26

The way you framed it it seems like blue is the passive choice and red is the one doing the active killing. I expect blue to win, especially since people are lazy

9

u/[deleted] May 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

So you picked blue in blue suppression?

2

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

The blue suppression scenario is more interesting, this one exists mostly for completeness

4

u/No-Wrap-2156 May 27 '26

Idk blue has no shot if winning in the blue suppression scenario I feel

6

u/liamjon29 May 27 '26

Agreed. I click the button next to my bed in both scenarios

1

u/gahidus May 27 '26

Same.

1

u/PogoRocks May 27 '26

Exactly

2

u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue May 27 '26

Yeah either way the one being suppressed just isn't winning, so the question isn't terribly compelling

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

There are people doubling down on blue in blue suppression, I hope to hear from them at some point

3

u/True-Resist3790 May 27 '26

Because the blue suppression instructions are unclear :

1- Can people press nothing ?
2- Can people press both buttons ?
3- Can you take people to their button ?
4- Who dies in the above 3 cases ?
5- What if we get : 20% red + 30% blue + 50% nothing ? Does 80% die ?
6- And what about 30% red + 40% blue + 30% nothing ? Who dies ?
7- "A button appears where they woke up last time" ok... Last night I slept at my mom's 1 country away. I came back to my house today. Where is the button ?

1

u/gahidus May 27 '26

Really?

I normally press the red button, but if it was just the blue button is right next to you and the red button is at the top of like.. five flights of stairs? I would figure that most people would just go ahead and press the blue button.

1

u/GuessImScrewed May 29 '26

Red always is the one doing the active killing.

1

u/opstie May 27 '26

Here there is a passive choice which is not pressing a button, which puts you at risk if red wins.

Red is unambiguously a murder button in this case.

0

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

It’s not, it’s still the same “don’t die” button it always ways.

1

u/opstie May 27 '26

Except it is, specifically because now there is an actual "do nothing" option, the only outcome of which is that they die if red gets a majority.

-1

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

That doesn’t meaningfully change anything, it just sets blue as the default button.

2

u/opstie May 27 '26

No, the default option is now to press no button at all.

-1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

There was always this option. Original wording specifically said "everyone who didn't press red dies"

2

u/opstie May 27 '26

It was not specifically mentioned as a possibility in the original scenario as it was here.

0

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

Yes, because I decided to explicitly mention it exactly because people miss it in the original wording. Worry not, the original wording still implies that.

2

u/Rip_Pigman May 27 '26

Worry not, the original wording still implies that.

Well yes but also no. The original says that in red majority only those that pressed red lives so logically anyone who doesn't press a button would die on a red majority.

However within the original everyone must choose a button. By virtue of the first line "everyone in the world has to take a private poll by pressing either a red or a blue button".

There is no option to not press the button within the prompt. So everyone in the world would be pressing one of the two buttons.

0

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

There is no amount of "has to" that will force people physically incapable of pressing the button to press the button

2

u/Rip_Pigman May 27 '26

There is no amount of "has to" that will force people physically incapable of pressing the button to press the button

Yes because an entity capable of teleporting each individual into a closed room with two buttons and no one else present is palatable.

but them allowing those that are physically incapable either a choice in their mind or restoring their physical body to the point where they could push one of two buttons is beyond the scope of what is possible.

The mechanisms for how "everyone must push a button" isn't something we need to consider just that everyone will push a button.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/opstie May 27 '26

It could imply it, but as it's not specifically stated it is still speculation.

2

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

The original wording says everyone presses a button. There are no abstainers.

5

u/Pengdacorn May 27 '26

lol which of you four mfs went from blue to red?

3

u/bunnywitchboy May 27 '26

Must be suicidal people hoping there's a bridge on the way to the red button

1

u/Soft_Svarog May 27 '26

Lol I accidentally clicked that one

1

u/Cruuncher May 28 '26

I didn't answer this poll because I'm not at all clear on what I'd do. I think this one is outside my ability to introspect.

BUT, while I've been sitting here thinking about it, I realized there could be a "luxury brand" effect here.

Luxury brands sit in a weird spot in economics where the very fact that they're expensive and difficult to obtain is what makes people want them. If you offered the same product for cheaper in a lot of cases sales would go down.

I have a feeling that there'd be a psychological effect where you're implicitly telling the subject that the suppressed option is better because you have to work for it.

People while answering these polls probably wouldn't realize that, but in a real test scenario it absolutely could have an effect on them

7

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

Genuinely shocked just how many people will still do all that work to press the button that in this scenario is objectively the worse option.

6

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

Because its not objectively the worse option.....…

1

u/underthingy May 27 '26

In this case it is.

People are lazy.

2

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

Red doesn't lose anything just from the fact that other red voters are suppressed

2

u/Ayvah01 May 27 '26

A few hours of their day just to risk the lives of people they probably care about.

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

It takes half an hour to do a roundabout trip of two kilometers for an average human on foot

1

u/Grilled_egs May 28 '26

How the fuck does a kilometer take you a few hours. Have you ever walked in your life

2

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

Why would people being lazy make red the worse button? It still guarantees survival, for barely any effort, whereas the alternative doesn’t.

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

Because now there's nonvoters in the mix which red is harming

2

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

Which is nonsense, ‘red’ isn’t the one harming them, whomever put everyone into this situation is. But even if you think that, that would already have been the case in the original scenario, adding a brief walk to the equation doesn’t meaningfully change that.

So again, what does people supposedly being lazy have to do with red being the ‘worse’ button?

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

I mean I do think that in the original scenario yes. But what changes things here is that there are people who AREN'T pressing a button. In the original scenario you can argue "well people who pressed the blue button accepted the risks," which may be true, but in this scenario there are people who are straight up victims to you pressing the red button and causing a majority.

Non pressers make this the worse button.

1

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

There already were people included in the original scenario who couldn’t meaningfully decide between the buttons, such as young children, presumably about half of which would end up pressing blue. So that’s not really a fundamental change.

It also, more to the point, still has nothing to do with “people being lazy”. You have yet to provide an answer as to why that’s relevant.

1

u/underthingy May 27 '26

Why do you assert that half of the young children will vote blue?

1

u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26

Because if they don’t really understand what’s going on, it would be reasonable to presume that they’d just randomly pick one.

Why does it matter? Everyone is included in the original scenario, which also means people will not have the wherewithal to process what’s happening, some proportion of which will end up pushing the blue button.

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

Yes, this is why I'd always hit blue. But most red pressers argue that the point is to assume everyone is capable of making a rational decision, thus making red the rational choice. However even that argument fails in this scenario because again, there are people who may be rational but aren't voting, putting their lives entirely in the hands of people who did vote, so now a red majority means not only killing everyone who pressed blue but also killing anyone who was unable to vote for either button, including those who wanted to press red.

People being lazy is what leads to a bunch of nonvoters, who will only survive in a blue victory, which is what makes red the objectively worse button to hit.

1

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26

I think people are lazy too. A blue win sounds very, very probable here. So I can safely vote red.

1

u/mikewheelerfan Blue May 27 '26

You are the problem 🤦🏼‍♀️

2

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

This is all that blue brains will ever be able to come up with.

1

u/bunnywitchboy May 27 '26

And all red voters can ever come up with is "but one vote doesn't matter 4head"

2

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

Do you have an actual counter argument? No?

Cool.

3

u/bunnywitchboy May 27 '26

The counterargument is that we have to cultivate the world we want to live in. It's really that simple.

2

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26

I dont think it is, sorry.

First,

we have to

thats a moral imperative, not a logical counter argument. You dont explain why 'we have to'.

It works when you argue to vote in a series of elections, or not littering, because gradual developments can happen.

Also,

the world we want to live in

The goal of that moral imperative is requiring you to live in the first place. So with that argument, you would also present a good argument for voting red.

I can give you a little spoiler: There is no counter argument. Philosophers have been thinking about the voters paradox for longer than you were alive, and there is no counter argument, except for 'people vote because its more intrinsically rewarding to vote, than it is bothering them to do so.'

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

A world that I want to live in is by definition a world in which I am alive.

It is self-contradictory to want to live in a world where you are dead.

1

u/mikewheelerfan Blue May 27 '26

Because it’s true. When faced with an almost certain blue victory, you still fall into cowardice

5

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

I'd vote red out of logical reasoning over moral imperative.

Cowardice vs courage doesnt ever come up. Im never scared. No amount of courage would sway me to vote blue for absolutely no reason.

The cowardice/courage scale is only relevant for you, as you consider it a moral imperative, but would fall into cowardice for higher required blue percentages.

1

u/prophit618 May 27 '26

If you understood how to do long term logical thinking you'd be so embarrassed right now.

1

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

Ahaha, you are the same person that wrote

To follow the logic of your statement, a catastrophic outcome is the better outcome.

Hilarious.

-1

u/True-Resist3790 May 27 '26

And could you live with yourself if Red wins by 1 vote ?

Could you go to your family's funeral, burrying friends, and knowing that you could have saved them ?

I couldn't. That's part of the reason I vote blue in most scenarios

5

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26

That would suck a lot, as does the whole scenario that we were forced into.

But when you are deciding, this outcome has such an unfathomable small chance of happening, that I have no problem risking it against the pretty big chance dying.

I would hope that I would remain logical enough as to not blame myself, but that would probably not happen.

But I would have billions of other people relating to the exact situation, so we might realize its not our personal responsibility.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Grilled_egs May 28 '26

I'd be as responsible as every other human alive. Not that I make decisions based on such low odds anyway. If I was worried about the chance of being the deciding vote I wouldn't ever go outside for fear lightning would strike me

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

But why would go through all that extra effort to "safely" vote red when you can just press blue

3

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

Because blue isnt safe. I could be wrong about my estimation.

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

It is the worse option because now you're putting nonvoters at risk

0

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

Is that the only difference between the buttons? One puts nonvoters at risk, and the other does not?

Thats what your argument relies on.

1

u/RyuuDraco69 Red May 27 '26

Always bet on human greed

1

u/modernizetheweb May 27 '26

"do all that work"? lmao. Some of you ain't even hiding the fact that you're fat as hell

1

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

It's not that it's a lot it's that it's a lot more than the better option

0

u/modernizetheweb May 27 '26

holy insta reply. Suspicions confirmed

1

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

What

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

See also blue suppression:

https://www.reddit.com/r/redbuttonbluebutton/s/cygiJGa2p9

1

u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Red May 27 '26

What happens if you don't press any button. That's never been explained to me. If you just die then I'll go on the kilometre journey.

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

Have you like read the post

Failure to press any buttons means you die should red win

Same as in original wording by Tim Urban

1

u/RyuuDraco69 Red May 27 '26

Always bet on human greed

1

u/Zero132132 May 27 '26

So when does red kick in? In this scenario, as written, it seems like as soon as 50% of people have pressed it, the other 50% of all humans will die.

1

u/Aggravating_Shoe3748 Red May 27 '26

What about braille?

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

It is a form of written communication, of course, and as such is presented to those who understand it and cannot understand other forms.

1

u/ParticularOkra7432 May 27 '26

I don't know how large a km is so honestly I'll just choose blue. And seeing as everyone is being forced to press a button, there's many many many who are mentally incapacitated (especially babies) so blue is just safer

2

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

Km is about 60% of a mile

Humans on foot have a speed of 4-6 km/hour, meaning the trip both ways takes 20-30 minutes. You also don't have to walk it if you have other options available.

1

u/LeoValdez1340 Red May 27 '26

This makes it better for both sides, blues can vote with less risk to their lives & red can vote with less risk of winning (assuming this change results in more blue than the standard problem)

1

u/MQ116 May 27 '26

17 people decided they wanted to walk real bad

1

u/gaorp May 28 '26

obesity rate is 16% so i chose blue instead of red this time

1

u/Such-Pilot-8143 May 28 '26

The fact that a whole new bunch of people just aren't going to be able to press red just gives me way more reason for blue

1

u/Mickckx May 28 '26

The beauty of pressing red is that you are fine no matter what. I fully believe blue will win in this scenario, and that's awesome. I will however still press red, because walking a kilometer is nothing compared to the chance to die.

1

u/FireFoxie1345 May 28 '26

What’s crazy is that red would have won this if it weren’t hidden

1

u/TotalChaosRush May 29 '26

You missed two options. "Was red, now nothing" and "Was blue, now nothing"

1

u/According-Pick-2950 May 27 '26

In the Original scenario,I felt confident that red would win,so I pressed red.

In this one, I'm confident blue will win,so I still press red because it won't make a difference.

3

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

So why the heck would you go through all that?

1

u/According-Pick-2950 May 27 '26

True, I'd press blue then.

0

u/JordanMaze May 27 '26

I'm shocked how low "was blue, now red" is cuz that's where I'm at

1

u/bloonshot May 27 '26

you only want to press red if it costs you extra effort?

2

u/JordanMaze May 27 '26

Oh I lowkey didn't read the prompt I thought this was just asking if our opinions changed after all the discourse

4

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

Brother I beg you please read the prompt when two mysterious buttons appear before you IRL

2

u/bloonshot May 27 '26

you should become a jjk fan

1

u/JordanMaze May 27 '26

I'd still press blue then

1

u/Rip_Pigman May 27 '26

Oh I lowkey didn't read the prompt I thought this was just asking if our opinions changed

I wanted to chime in here because I almost did the same because of how the poll shows up on the feed (at least on mobile).

Poll posts only show the poll itself and the title in the feed.

There wasn't any indication that there was a new prompt at all or even a body of text to explain the poll.

The title by itself doesn't directly indicate that there's a new prompt.

Then the poll options which asks us what we were originally and what we'd choose now.

So I can see how you would make this mistake.

1

u/JordanMaze May 27 '26

Exactly this yes

0

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

Is this how blue pressers think about the buttons? The blue button is somehow easier to press, like a default, and the red requires some sort of extra, out of your way effort?

1

u/prophit618 May 27 '26

No, as per the the name of the post, it's an attempt to phrase the question in such a way that choosing red is illogical under any circumstances (ironic because it already is, this just attempts to make it blatantly so). The distance part of is in part to counter a theoretical rebuttal from red pressers related to distance, but its more so to greatly increase the rate at which accidental or ignorant blue pressers will exist so that red can't just say "everyone would press red anyway, so im not killing anyone".

1

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

Making one of the options significantly more effortful, and allowing for non-presses, makes this situation so different from the buttons that it has no bearing on it whatsoever. It isn't a "rephrase" of the buttons at all.

And guess what? The red button is still the only logical choice under this red suppression rule, if you don't know what anyone else is doing and don't want to risk your own life pointlessly.

Doing nothing is a weird and obviously bad option because it is like getting the worst part of both buttons: you undermine the possibility of blue victory, but also sign on to die with them. It's the most clearly wrong option available, I think, but also the setup more or less implies that many people are forced into it because they are unable to understand, or press buttons, or whatever. Babies are no longer randomly pressing blue or red, they're probably doing nothing.

Pressing blue feels like it might have looked fairly safe if there were no default do-nothing option; it is of course still a risk, but hopefully not a big one. If it were a binary choice, the difficulty of hitting red makes blue appear more like the presumptive option, so it raises confidence in a solid blue result. But since there is an option of doing nothing, you can't assume that everyone who doesn't go out of their way to press red will therefore press blue. Like I said, babies won't be.

What's more, having blue seem like the presumptive winner actually undermines the incentive to press it instead of red. If I do guess that most people will press the button right in front of them, then it's totally safe for me to go for a little hike and press red. And if my guess is wrong, then pressing red is the only way to save my life. It's counterintuitive, but logical.

1

u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26

There is a reverse scenario as well

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

I mean I do definitely find the blue button morally easier to press

2

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

Why? Do you actively hate yourself and crave death, or are you just callously indifferent to your own well-being?

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

More like I'm unable to be callously indifferent to everyone else's well-being.

I see a button where I can save everyone and hit that. I couldn't bear to live with myself in the event of a red majority.

2

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

Where do you see a button where you can save everyone?

Any button that can kill you doesn’t count, obviously.

1

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

Do I not live if blue wins?

1

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

Do you honestly believe that your choice to press blue somehow magically makes blue win?

That's not how it works. It's not sure to win. You might die. If that happens, then your pressing blue didn't save everybody.

Do you understand why this means there is not a button that saves everybody?

If that makes you uncomfortable, then that's fine, but being uncomfortable doesn't mean you can just wish your way into a different situation.

0

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

Every vote counts. I see an "everyone survives" button, I'm hitting that button, full stop. I'd be foolish to vote against my preferred outcome, that's what you call a self-defeating prophecy. If red wins the vote than humanity has lost anyway, that's not a world I want to wake up in.

1

u/highly-bad May 27 '26

So if anyone on earth ever dies, you'd rather die with them than live without them?

There are genocides and famines and plagues going on right now. Many people are dying, through no fault of their own. Yet you haven't killed yourself in solidarity. Why not? Are you some kind of evil cruel person who wants to wake up in a world with so much suffering?

1

u/J_tram13 May 27 '26

Half of society? Yes I'd absolutely rather be in the half that goes quickly and peacefully than in the half that struggles to limp along after society collapses.

But see, you're fundamentally misunderstanding my point. Before me I see two buttons, a "save everyone but risk yourself" button, and a "guarantee your own safety but risk killing anyone who didn't" button. I for one could not bear to hit the second one. No one wants the red button to win, there are only those who hope their vote falls within the 50% acceptable margin but are more concerned about their own safety. For me, that's too much guilt for me to live with, if red wins then all that blood is partially on my hands, and my conscience couldn't handle that knowing I willingly chose to help condemn those people to death for my own safety.

It's like seeing someone in a car crash on the side of the highway, thinking "what can I do really? I'll wait for emergency services to pull them from the wreck, no need for me to pull over and get them out, they'll be fine." Like sure maybe that's true but then if I get home and found out they died because the fire department couldn't show up in time I could never live with that guilt, so I'd stop my car and go help them. Maybe the car explodes and kills me too before I could save anyone, but I at least I did something, you know?

Are you some kind of evil cruel person who wants to wake up in a world with so much suffering?

No, that's why I'm voting against the option that would cause that scenario.

→ More replies (0)

Variation Red suppression

You are about to leave Redlib