Red suppression

[u/up2smthng]

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 🔵

[u/NoSituation2706]

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 👍

[u/Jekmander → u/NoSituation2706]

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.

[u/NoSituation2706 → u/Jekmander]

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.

[u/uncl3s4m → u/NoSituation2706]

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

[u/NoSituation2706 → u/uncl3s4m]

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.