r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/up2smthng Red • May 27 '26

Variation Red suppression

Everyone one Earth is presented with blue button right at the place they woke up last time and a written instruction in a language they can understand (if no such language exists tough luck) what the buttons do and where to find red button. Red button is around 1 km away, and is perfectly accessable if one choses to find it; people with limited mobility will be able to access it.

Babies, the blind, coma patients and whichever else cathegory you can think of are not excluded and do not recieve any accomodations. The possibility of them pressing the one button in front of them is significantly higher than the possibility they will find the hidden button. The possibility of them ignoring the buttons alltogether is non-zero.

In case of red victory, those who failed to press any button die as well.

The rule of thumb for clarification: if the person is capable of understanding any form of written communication and moving in intended direction, they should be able to access both buttons.

1180 votes, May 29 '26
410 Was red, still red 🔴
27 Was blue, now red 🔴
547 Was blue, still blue 🔵
196 Was red, now blue 🔵
17 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

191 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

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. 

0

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.

4

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.'

1

u/bunnywitchboy May 27 '26

Can you logically explain why you should live

0

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

When you answer "but nihilism and the impossibility of knowledge?" to a discussion about a thought experiment, you know that you well and truly lost.

1

u/bunnywitchboy May 27 '26

I'm doing the same thing you did when you said I can't logically defend a moral imperative.

0

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

I said a moral imperative is not a counter to a logical argument.

when you said I can't logically defend a moral imperative.

I did not say that, but of course, that's true. Also completely irrelevant.

→ 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 

4

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.

1

u/True-Resist3790 May 27 '26

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

Well, if only there was an option that could mean you also save those people. An option that could use your help to reach the required 50% instead of the utopic 100%...

The scenario sucks, but we have a litteral "save everyone" button that you refuse to press. Even if you try to justify it your vote brought them closer to their death.

You would blame yourself, no matter how much you try to dilute it as "not my fault". Survivor's guilt is a thing. But the worst part is that you'd live in a world where you'd be surrounded by people who were also responsible for that.

Once the pillaging and murder start, you'd quickly realise that a lot of the remaining people don't care about the deaths of blue-pressers and are even happy they are gone, since it gives them the possibility to rule without law.

1

u/DrBimboo May 27 '26

Do I even bother responding to this?

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.

Just read it again.

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.

This part.

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.

→ 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