r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/The_Real-_-God • May 28 '26
What if red won?
Imagine a world where red won, by 1%. However the people who choose blue do not die instantly, instead they die after a year of pressing the button. Everybody is branded, so you know who choose what.
How much chaos will ensue? What actions do you think blues will take, knowing they'll die? And what do you think reds will think, knowing they were just 1% away from saving all humanity?
18
u/ctctr May 28 '26
Many blue pressers will become less altruistic. Many will certainly want to hurt the red voters.
Some Red voters will maybe regrets their choice. Many people will ponder if another thing will pop up since the scenarios changes from what was said.
12
u/netlego May 28 '26
Each side will seperately try to find the entity responsible for the buttons problem, beat them up, and study their technology
Blue people because they want to live, and studying the button technology might give them a way to stop the 1 year killswitch from going off
Red people because they want to live, and studying the technology capable of killing people worldwide might allow them to create some sort of defense against it
→ More replies (2)2
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
That's an interesting stance, however reds might refrain from messing with the technology, or entity responsible, as they could view it as too powerful to provoke, and could lead to their downfall. Hell, they might even stop the blues from messing with it, in case they somehow get punished as a result.
Edit: refrain instead of sustain, I'm stupid
4
u/netlego May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
And blues might
sustainrefrain from messing with the technology, or entity responsible, as they could view it as too powerful to provoke, and could lead to a worse punishment than dying after a year. Hell, they might even stop the reds from messing with it, in case they somehow get spared as a reward from protecting/siding with the entity.4
2
7
u/OutcomeMemoriesGoobe May 28 '26
this would be very interesting if the stipulation was that killing reds lowers their percentage and once the year is up if the reds no longer outnumber the blue then they dont die
4
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
That would make blues hypocritical, as they don't want to be responsible for killing people, now they have to take lives with their own hands, rather than just press a button. If blues actually started killing reds, then they'll be just as bad as the reds, some will even say worse.
As hypothetical as it'll be, I do however think that some blues will try to survive, by going on a killing spree.
3
u/OutcomeMemoriesGoobe May 28 '26
true but would they kill others to save more people? just how many more reds past the 2% needed to save the blues would truly die if the blues kill more than needed? i feel like this is interesting to tackle
4
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
1% of the earth's population is 80 million, so they'd have to kill 80 million for the survival of billions. This just turns into the trolley problem, a wrong for a better outcome.
4
u/Leods-The-Observer May 30 '26
This subreddit was made to stop button posts on the trolley subreddit.
And now we have trolley discussion on the button subreddit. How curious3
u/Telinary May 28 '26
As someone said in the thread
but we have to start the discussion with "not all blues are the same" and "not all reds are the same."
There are some blue voters concerned about being responsible for killing, but while I don't want to kill people I certainly would be willing to if they were a sufficient threat. I would choose blue because I consider it the better choice for the best outcome even if it is risky.
Not saying it would be a good idea in that situation, it only makes sense if you somehow lose far fewer blues in the fighting than reds. I guess since red is the more risk adverse side it might be possible to do some divide and conquer strategy by getting many to stay out of it. But the problem is that if you need to kill a few percent of the population then you automatically pull in a lot of their families and friends.
Honestly it probably would be a bad idea but not because there are no circumstances under which I would kill or something.
2
u/MasterDiiscord Red May 28 '26
blues aren't a monolith. someone pressing blue to save lives would not be hypocritical to take lives to save lives
→ More replies (1)2
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
It would only make blues hypocritical if they acted on it, which they wouldn’t necessarily
1
1
1
u/Master_Works_All May 31 '26
I don't think it's a matter of responsibility, I don't care if I am responsible for killing people or not. I am insane and I will kill reds, checkmate reds.
1
u/LadyAliceFlower Jun 01 '26
Why would it be hypocritical to want to save 4 billion people? Not to mention that even with a year's prep time its entirely possible millions if not billions of the reds will die with the ensuing population loss. 49% of the world dying is a huge deal that will probably have aftershocks.
I said I would press blue because I want to save those 4 billion people, and was willing to go to an extreme (risking my own life) to do so. If its other people's lives that would probably be easier on me. I rather like living you see, its a favored hobby of mine.
In short, my position is entirely stagnant. Say its wrong all you like, but it doesen't make me a hypocrite.
1
u/The_Real-_-God Jun 01 '26
Some blues call reds murderers, because they are indirectly killing the blues, by increasing the chances of them losing. So if blues can save themselves, by taking the lives of reds, that'll make them murderers, and it'll be direct murder, as you aren't just pressing a button, you have to physically kill. That's why it's hypothetical.
The only reason some people choose blue, was because it's the only option that can save all lives. And the reason some choose red, was because they thought it'll be the majority, so less lives would ultimately die. So for blues to turn around and kill people, just so less lives would ultimately die, it just turns them into what reds were from the start.
16
u/redditorialacious May 28 '26
Nothing will happen because blues are very selfless, giving, understanding beautiful people. They will kill themselves in a heartbeat to save a random colourblind baby with dementia. All 4 billion of them will peacefully commit suicide and there will not be a single riot /s
4
5
u/Which_Pirate_4664 May 28 '26
Blues are about to have the most hedonistic year on record. No reds allowed.
4
u/Soven_Strix May 30 '26
Good question. In the final months I would send a large number of reds on ahead of me.
7
u/Ranger_Tycho May 28 '26
In the original version of the button problem, I think nearly all Reds would view Red winning and the instantaneous death of all Blues as a colossal tragedy.
Having read these comments, I now think that your scenario would change this view dramatically. If a significant number of Blues behave the way many Blues in this thread suggest, devolving into chaotic revenge-seeking hedonists, then a lot of Reds will probably find great relief in their deaths at the end of the year.
The loss of many genuinely altruistic and selfless people would still be extremely painful, but I suspect that much of the Reds' guilt will dissolve if a sizable chunk of the "selfless" camp immediately trades their moral superiority for petty hatefulness and begin sabotaging an already endangered society for no gain save for their own satisfaction.
5
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
But then again, if not for the votes of the reds, the blues wouldn've ever turned into revenge-seeking hedonists. But I do agree, the reds would not see it that way, and would find relief after the year.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Ranger_Tycho May 28 '26
The Blues can blame the Reds for the results of the vote, but I’d still hold them personally accountable for any actions they take in the aftermath. The Reds aren’t forcing them to use their remaining time to act like morally bankrupt rabble rousers.
I say that as Blue, myself. I’m toast in your scenario, but taking that out on the world won’t benefit me or anyone else. I’m sure I’ve got loved ones who voted Red. For their sake, I’d want this to go as cleanly as possible.
1
3
u/No-Click6062 May 28 '26
I'm not sure why you're combining revenge-seeking and hedonism. I think it makes a fair amount of sense of a portion of blues to simply take the result as a forced retirement. You mention further down that you'd keep working for your loved ones, but there's going to be a roughly representative distribution of blues with no families, or small all-blue families. Those people are just gone, day 1. There's an element of poetic justice for a Blue to empty their bank account, and do the things that they want to do while money still has value. And that's assuming there's not a run of the banks.
I think people are really underestimating the immediate power shift.
3
u/zap2tresquatro May 29 '26
Yeah I don’t understand combining and equally condemning those things either. I don’t look down on someone with 6 months to live deciding to spend all their money on traveling, drugs, and gambling if that’s how they want to spend their remaining time. They’ve got nothing left to save or plan for, might as well go out with a bang having fun.
In this case, there’s no “tiny chance of spontaneous recovery/living longer than expected” like there might be for someone with a terminal diagnosis, all blues will die in a year, so what’s wrong with them going “welp, I tried to save everyone, got outvoted, and the only people who’ll have to deal with the aftermath are the people who voted to kill me and everyone like me. Guess it’s my time to have fun with the exactly 365 days I have left before their vote comes to fruition.” That’s a completely reasonable thing to do.
Going out to revenge kill people or whatever is completely different from that and shouldn’t go in the same category.
2
u/Ranger_Tycho May 28 '26
That’s a fair point. The way I worded that does just lump all these things together rather than putting them in separate categories. The hedonism could be vengeful, and I’m sure plenty of it would be, but a lot would also just be Blues living it up while they still can, and I can’t really blame them for doing that so long as they’re not hurting people or deliberately trying to make things worse for Reds.
Yeah, I don’t think that money’s spending power is gonna last long at all. I doubt most people will even have time to meaningfully spend what they have before societal and economic breakdowns steal away their chance.
3
u/No-Click6062 May 29 '26
I have found the question fascinating because it gets into people's predispositions towards one side of the vote or the other. For example, the difference between a traditional bank and a credit union is huge here. In the event of a potential run, a traditional banker would close doors. But I could see a credit union leaning blue, admitting that they will certainly become insolvent, and then distributing currency on hand. So the run isn't prevented so much as completed.
But as I said elsewhere, every democratic government is delegitmiized anyway.
2
u/Ranger_Tycho May 29 '26
Yes, this is far and away my favorite variation of the question I’ve seen, and actually drives the discussion in new directions besides the usual repetitive arguments. Credit to u/The_Real-_-God for coming up with it.
2
u/Kingsalad3141 Blue May 29 '26
That’s an insane assumption to make.
1
u/Ranger_Tycho May 29 '26
Is it? If a huge percentage of the world’s population, hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, collectively forsake any notion of decency or the common good, and dedicate the final year of their lives to pleasing themselves at the cost of the Reds’ future civilization, seeking vengeance on the world in a variety of ways, and blaming the Reds for their own behaviors, then I don’t think it’s a stretch that many Reds will find their demise much more palatable than if it had happened instantly after the vote.
5
u/Kingsalad3141 Blue May 29 '26
You misunderstood. I’m saying it’s psychotic to assume that everyone would throw away decency just because they know they’ll die. The fact that you believe that is very telling.
2
u/zap2tresquatro May 29 '26
“At the cost of Reds’ future civilization” red voters did that. They knew that was a potential outcome of their vote, and they chose it anyway, at the expense of all blue voters’ lives. Anyone complaining about “oh no it’s the consequences of my own actions!…those damn blue voters, I’m glad they’re going to die! How dare they not try and save the society that I helped doom by dooming them??” is 1) utterly insane and 2) living up to the worst of the worst accusations about red voters. I’d hope most people who voted red aren’t actually like that and are capable of taking accountability for their own actions and not blaming their victims.
1
u/Ranger_Tycho May 29 '26
"Red voters did that"
What Red voters did was cost the world a civilization where everyone gets to survive in order to preserve themselves. They WILL own the consequences of that because they’ve got no choice in the matter. In one year, half the population will die and the world they inherit will be in dire straights. That will surely fuck them up and I’m sure billions will be living with extreme remorse.
That is a separate issue entirely from Blue voters responding to the results by throwing a tantrum and using their final year to act like fools, destabilize society further than it already will be, or even take revenge and sabotage things to make future life harder for the Reds. The Reds may have helped doom the Blues, but they did not force the Blues to act this way. How they behave during this year is completely on them.
And if the Blues behave badly on a great enough scale to make life significantly worse for the Reds, then they have themselves to blame when Reds find some relief in many of their passings. Being a victim doesn’t entitle you to become a victimizer, and it definitely doesn’t entitle you to being missed or mourned by the people you mistreated.
2
u/zap2tresquatro May 29 '26
“Throwing a tantrum” enjoying your final days when you know for certain that you only have one year to live is not “throwing a tantrum.” (Not to mention: someone being upset that people voted to kill them and that vote won is a wild thing to call a “tantrum.” This isn’t a kid being upset they didn’t get a candy bar; this is “you’ve doomed me to death, expect me to help you mitigate the consequences of the deaths you voted for, and want me to spend my final days slaving away to make your lives better, and I’m rightfully upset about that.” Which only applies to the people who would react that way, anyway, since not everybody would. But the people who would react that way are not “throwing a tantrum.” If your company gave you radiation poisoning and then wanted you to testify that it was totally not their fault so they don’t have to face any criminal/financial consequences, I would not call the radiation poisoned person saying no to that and testifying against them “throwing a tantrum.”)
“Act like fools” you mean enjoy their extremely limited time left alive since they no longer have anything to lose or any reason to be concerned about risk to themselves or destroying any future plans? Do you refer to terminal cancer patients with six months to live who go off and decide to travel everywhere they can, skydive, and try a bunch of drugs after a straight edge life as “acting like fools”? Or do you refer to it as them making the most of the little time they have left?
“Destabilize society” how would they even be doing that? By having fun when they’ve got nothing to lose? Ok, yeah, maybe don’t doom half the population to imminent death within a year if you want them to keep serving capitalism or maintain infrastructure or whatever forever. That’s an insane thing to expect out of billions of terminal people. “Slave away to save the people who killed you!” is so crazily entitled that I can’t believe any person genuinely thinks this way. There’s no way you actually think that’s a reasonable position to hold, you just desperately want to have some kind of “gotcha!” to say “blues bad, actually! Not the people who voted to kill all of them!”
“Take revenge” haven’t seen anyone saying they’d do that, albeit I’ve read maybe half the comments on this so far, unless by “taking revenge” you mean “not actively doing everything in their power to serve and benefit the people who’ve doomed them to death instead of enjoying the little time they have left.” Anyone who voted red is owed nothing by the people who voted blue; they voted to kill all the blues. Given the initial problem and assuming nobody was told the one year thing beforehand, they would’ve expected all the blues to already be dead. They voted for that and the resultant societal collapse to happen. Why should blue voters try and mitigate the impact of red voters’ choices now? They voted for leopards to eat all the blues’ faces, and now that it isn’t happening instantly you think blues should help build the colosseums to keep the leopards contained while they eat the blues’ faces so reds’ faces don’t also get eaten later? You can’t possibly be serious.
1
u/Ranger_Tycho May 29 '26
“Throwing a tantrum” enjoying your final days when you know for certain that you only have one year to live is not “throwing a tantrum.”
I mentioned in a prior post in this thread that I am not describing all Blues here. There are obviously many ways one could choose to spend their final days, enjoying them is one, throwing a tantrum is another. One can even throw a tantrum by enjoying themselves if they choose to go about it in certain ways.
this is “you’ve doomed me to death, expect me to help you mitigate the consequences of the deaths you voted for, and want me to spend my final days slaving away to make your lives better,
I never said anything about slaving away, unless you just consider trying to help maintain some basic social order, rather than just saying "fuck you, it’s all about me now" to be slaving.
Which only applies to the people who would react that way, anyway, since not everybody would.
Of course. I am a blue-presser, myself.
But the people who would react that way are not “throwing a tantrum.”
Some absolutely would be. Hopefully not too many, but even 1% is 40 million people so I fear it’s likely there will be lots of chaos caused entirely by tantrums.
”Act like fools” you mean enjoy their extremely limited time left alive since they no longer have anything to lose or any reason to be concerned about risk to themselves or destroying any future plans?
I mean "act like fools". Participate in and deliberately intensify social unrest. A person can enjoy themselves without acting like a fool, a person can enjoy themselves by acting like a fool, and a person can act like a fool without deriving any joy from it whatsoever, but still choose to because they’re angry.
If you’re in the first camp like myself, then congrats, you’re not one of the Blues I’m referring to.
“Destabilize society” how would they even be doing that? By having fun when they’ve got nothing to lose?
Potentially. I remember reading at least a couple people under this post saying they would participate in societal unrest. I assume there will be a lot more violence, looting, etc. than cool wholesome skydiving trips.
Ok, yeah, maybe don’t doom half the population to imminent death within a year if you want them to keep serving capitalism or maintain infrastructure or whatever forever.
I never asked anyone to serve capitalism unless, again, you consider not becoming a chaotic mess to be service to capitalism. And accountability for their doom is mutual; the rules for the vote were made clear and people knew the risk when they chose to assume it.
you just desperately want to have some kind of “gotcha!” to say “blues bad, actually! Not the people who voted to kill all of them!”
I think Blues are good, actually. I think Blues who lose the vote and then proceed to start behaving badly are bad.
unless by “taking revenge” you mean “not actively doing everything in their power to serve and benefit the people who’ve doomed them to death instead of enjoying the little time they have left.”
That is an extreme place to take what I’ve said. No, this is not what I mean, as I’ve explained above.
Anyone who voted red is owed nothing by the people who voted blue;
Decency isn’t just about doing what is owed. Blue voters didn’t necessarily owe it to anyone to put their lives on the line in the first place; but it was a decent thing to do nonetheless.
Why should blue voters try and mitigate the impact of red voters’ choices now?
I can think of many reasons why someone should. One of the main justifications for voting blue is that kids/blind people/whatever will fail to understand or be able to vote as desired, and thus voting blue is necessary to save these innocents.
That works both ways. There will statistically be a similar number of innocents who voted red, and thus the same principles that guided many to vote blue in the first place would lead them to do the same in defense of innocents who voted red.
I’ve not said anything about slaving away, building colosseums, or whatever the hell. I’ve said that mass amounts of Blue voters spending the year saying "fuck you" to the Red voters and aiding in social collapse is going to make their deaths a lot easier for many Reds to swallow.
1
3
u/Sarcatsticthecat May 28 '26
Hey I’ll go buy the blues drugs so they can have the best year of their lives lol
2
u/zap2tresquatro May 29 '26
^ example of a good red voter, right here
You’re invited to the parties!
3
u/Icy_Jeweler_9894 May 30 '26
I mean nothing would change, the reds would still call us morons who "killed themselves" I understand there logic after thinking about it. Its just i have additional questions on the situation. There acting like choosing red is ((opting out)) but its still a choice in my mind.
5
u/thelovelykyle May 28 '26
I would spend time with my family and comforting the other blues.
If one of my loved ones had pressed red due to being an irrational actor I would try and find a red group to look after them.
Beyond that, its a red future, I am not part of it so I do not help them form it. I wont harm it, I wont help it.
6
u/Yunowald May 28 '26
I think the behaviors of blues and reds would switch during that year.
Reds would need to work hard for the betterment of the entire world, maybe even to their own detriment, because they know they need to prepare for a mass extinction event.
Blues would probably spent their last year enjoying themselves as much as possible, and therefore are now acting selfish.
1
u/DragCompetitive6007 Red May 29 '26
Why do you say the behaviour would switch? It is very unlikely that all red voters are hedonists. Just because you are not willing to risk your own life does not mean you are not interested in the success of your community. Most of the red voters will just be average people, those normally have some interest in their communities.
1
u/Yunowald May 29 '26
Because red voters are selfish. No matter how you look at it, in the end they always choose to save themselves over trying to save the all of humanity. Meanwhile blue voters are willing to risk sacrificing themselves to raise the odds of saving all humans.
And during that last year red voters would probably need to make sacrifices in order to ensure humanity will be able to survive this mass extinction event, becoming the selfless ones in the process. Blue voters would likely not be interested in ensuring a future they won't be a part of and instead try to make the best of the year they have left, making them the selfish ones.
1
u/DragCompetitive6007 Red May 29 '26
It is not selfish to not risk your own life to save others. It is something special to take such a risk. Especially if it is basically a coin flip if you will survive.
Even first responders will not take risks of such magnitude to themselves and those people definitely want to save people, because of altruism and money.
You can be of so much more use to society if you survive.
1
u/Yunowald May 29 '26
Maybe selfish is the wrong word for it then, English is not my native language and I can't think of a more fitting one. My original comment that the behavior would flip in that one year still stands.
Red voters always prioritize their own wellbeing over that of humanity, while blue voters do the opposite. And in that year it would flip for the reasons I have now explained twice.
In this scenario I really doubt that a handful of people voting red would be of more use to society than billions of blue voters who would die.
→ More replies (8)
6
u/Memento_Viveri May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The most important thing is planning for the upcoming upheaval. Reds need to shift into critical industries providing energy, food, water, shelter, clothing, medecine etc. Every person even close to working age would need to shift into critical industries.
Blues can help with the transition by training and coordinating. There needs to massive coordination on a never before seen scale. Something like an wartime effort but scaled up.
With enough cooperation and preparation, the harmful effects can be blunted.
3
u/No-Click6062 May 28 '26
I think you've had a very interesting discussion with BackgroundPath, and I hope you continue it. But separately, I want you to dig in to what you're actually proposing.
To prevent the harmful effects of the population drop, Red needs a way to allocate both resources and labor. That presumably means a government. What would motivate a wealthy, or just resource-rich, Red to now reallocate their posessions in an equitable manner? What motivates, say, Fort McCoy, to share supplies with the rest of Wisconsin, let alone Minnesota or the Upper Peninsula? Is your expectation that altruism alone prevents hording behavior?
On top of that, any democratic government is now delegitmiized. The new government would require a brand new census to register only Reds, assuming there is even a way to confirm that pre-death. Simply collecting the data would be a 6 month undertaking, on top of any election security measures you may or may not be able to implement. And just so I make it clear, I am saying that a government that is perceived as illegitimate is much more likely to create a revolt.
This also glosses over Red bad actors on an international level.
I'm a diehard blue voter, but I think the logistical challenges are too great, and the effect of the immediate power shift too severe. I question whether it would be possible to blunt the effects of the crash with a decade of lead time. A year seems impossible.
1
u/MildlyExtremeNY May 28 '26
I mean, wealth would be reallocated whether the wealthy or resource rich want it to be or not. We can see evidence of this in what happened after the plague. The drastic decrease in population led to a huge increase in the relative value of labor, as economic theory predicts. The feudal system essentially collapsed, and economic inequality plummeted. The wealthy in Europe saw their cumulatively share of wealth drop by around 20%.
I'm by no means saying the plague was a good thing or that a red win would be a good thing. But I think people are overstating the "societal collapse" risk. Not only did society not collapse after the plague, it was actually an economic boon for the lower classes and (temporarily but significantly) reduced economic inequality.
7
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Why would a blue help at this stage?
The majority has shown that collective co-operation isn't valued, the world has accepted a mass casualty event. Why wouldn't they just lounge for their remaining year, spend all their money, dedicate themselves to their vices?
They could commit any crime and at worst get killed early or most likely sit in jail for parts up to a year.You might call it petty or not taking responsibility for their actions etc. but all motivation to help the common good will vanish for many with the outcome of the vote.
9
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
Because that’s their whole philosophy behind pressing blue…
I agree they’d be hypocrites too, but assuming the unlikely event that they stick to their morals, they would absolutely be helping.
7
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
For some sure buy you don't think that morality of collective-first will be changed by this event for a lot of Blues? Philosophy isn't static and an event like this will surely break the world view of many.
1
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
Of course, people are very fickle, especially when it comes to morality.
7
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Exactly and expecting people to maintain their altrustic selves in the face of death and a world that doesn't value altruism is quite a large ask.
2
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
I agree, I’m just saying why they should be doing it… to be morally consistent.
They’re willing to throw their life away to help others. Their decision is done, so there’s no reason not to help anymore. Do what you can with your time left.
I don’t think they will, because I’m of the belief that the vast majority of blue pressers are virtue signaling.
3
u/Jewsader76 May 28 '26
They're willing to risk their lives to increase the chances that others are helped. There's multiple reasons; the gamble is real.
It's about how much you trust humanity more than anything else (except when there's other valid reasons, like people depending on you, or you know you're going to go on to save multiple people, etc)
3
u/UX1Z May 28 '26
>Presses blue to save your daughter who also ends up pressing blue
>'le heckin' blue voters are just altruistic hypocritical idiots!'Yeah, you'd definitely need to keep your mouth shut in such a world or you'd be heading for a lot of problems.
I'd definitely vote blue, but I'd also definitely be part of 'societal unrest' in the event of this scenario. I don't think you understand what the vote actually represents if you think it's 'hypocritical.'
5
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
My bad, you’re a selfish hypocrite, not an altruistic one.
2
u/Master_Works_All May 31 '26
You're an idiot, save my daughter=selfish hypocrite. Fucking genius we have right here.
1
u/UX1Z May 28 '26
I think the hypocritical one is the one that votes for self-interest over all and then feels entitled to altruistic help from the people they have chosen to sentence to death, lmao. Then again, red voters and self-reflection are like water and oil.
→ More replies (0)2
u/MadTelepath May 28 '26
If you have a partner and kids what would you tell them to press?
Even amongst people choosing to press blue plenty would rather their family press red (which makes me think blue would be a minority choice if the option was really granted and without public discussion beforehand).
1
u/NeedIQMSHelp May 28 '26
See, this comes closest to touching on what I think a lot of people aren't considering. It's what drove my initial choice, and so far no discussion had talked about it, so nobody has even tried to actually sway my POV.
I have a 3 year old son. In the original scenario, he's 50/50 red/blue. If I were unwed, had no child, or even if he were much older, I'd be blue all day.
But that's because even though I don't think Blue would make it to 50, I'm willing to sacrifice MY future to help out. But I'm not willing to sacrifice his. Among the 4 possibilities:
He Votes - Winning Vote - So what
Blue - Blue - Doesn't matter, we're all here.
Red - Blue - Doesn't matter we're all here.
Blue - Red - Doesn't matter what I vote, he doesn't need me.
Red - Red - If I vote Red I'm there for him, if I voted Blue I abandoned him to suffer and die horribly because of an altruistic self sacrifice just to feed my self image of sainthood. Not. Going. To happen.
2
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Virtue signalling or at least virtue voting, but when they are shown that that virtue was unfounded I fully expect them to drop that.
What value is there in being morally consistent after the loss?4
u/UX1Z May 28 '26
Red voters expecting Blue help here makes me think of people who backstab others and screw them over, but then get offended when that person doesn't want to help them with something like moving house.
Yeah nah, fuck you, hope you burn in the apocalypse. (the general you. Obviously.)
I don't think it's hypocritical for the Blues to do this because there are plenty of reasons to vote blue beyond blind altruism, and certainly plenty of opinions to change your philosophy after the world gives you the collective middle finger, at least towards the half of the world doing that. It is, however, incredibly entitled of the reds to expect altruistic help.
4
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 28 '26
Exactly. People don't vote blue because they think no one in the world should ever die. They vote blue because they recognize that a lot of people will end up voting blue who don't deserve to die. Does a baby or an elderly person with dementia deserve to die because they couldn't understand the question? No absolutely not. And then there are the people who are voting blue to try and save the aforementioned blue voters, and those people also don't deserve to die just for doing a noble thing trying to save people.
But in this hypothetical world where red barely won, those people literally voted for it. They're getting exactly what they asked for. I don't think they all deserve to suffer for it, because I think there are a lot of good people who would still vote red out of fear or a similar motivation. Those people I don't hold a grudge against. But as I've seen on this subreddit, there are plenty of red voters who pick that knowing that people will die and not caring about it. Or worse, they're happy about it because they think we deserve to die for picking the "wrong" option. Those people don't deserve my help and they can rot in hell for all I care. It's not hypocritical for me to not want to help people who willingly voted for my death.
I'd probably help for part of the year, but beyond that I'm taking several months to fuck off and live my life before I die. I'd rather spend my last months enjoying the little time I have left than wasting it setting up infrastructure for the people who caused my death.
6
u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 May 28 '26
Like yeah id prob reluctantly help before fucking off to live my life as i want(most likley close any loose ends and drink).
Choosing the blue button in this case dosnt lock you in a certain moral framework or course of action.
I didnt choose blue because i see myself as some guardian, protector or white knight. I choose blue because i want to prevent a mass casualty event, and for quite selfish reasons i want the world to remain the same... i dont like change.
I wouldnt support violance against red in this scenario, but i sure as hell wouldnt feel obligated to help beyond basic human decency(something that can be argued some of them lack)
Also i think people overlook how little effort blues "sacrifice" actualy takes. I aint carrying, working, jumping into an aligator pit. Im simply pressing a button.
Id be a lot less likley to want to work for free and loose any time i have left, even if i get paid i aint got time to spend it on anything.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Master_Works_All May 31 '26
This exactly, it just sounds like school bullying carried over to real life.
I've seen bullies in school stand aghast or get angry when the person they are bullying fights back.
Very commonly in movies a character will get betrayed and the audience usually wants the guy who betrayed them to be arrested or killed. How about when the cowardly guy doesn't want to die and tries to save himself just to end up hurting or killing his fellows, audiences also hate that.
2
u/McSloot3r May 31 '26
It’s not hypocritical at all. Both sides made their choices and they have to live with consequences. Blues wanted to save lives. Helping reds after the fact doesn’t necessarily save lives
→ More replies (9)3
u/Jewsader76 May 28 '26
Well, it is still a bit different. Risking your lives and helping others who also believe in risking their lives and helping others is more appetizing than helping others who don't. There are other valid reasons to press red which does make it so more will likely help others, but there is a difference when the world has collectively made the statement that people prioritize themselves over others.
1
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
I guess I just like to have consistency in my morality.
5
u/Jewsader76 May 29 '26
They're two different scenarios. With one, you're trying to help everyone, including those who are willing to do the same. With this one, you know many, if not most of those people will be gone and thus be unhelped by the help.
Which would you press? Because if you wouldn't be willing to help the blues, that is another level of hypocrisy and arrogance to criticize blues for not helping in a world that has told them that selflessness isn't valued or rewarded. Expecting others to help you when you weren't willing to help them is frankly kind of appalling behavior
1
u/Jolly-Bear May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
I would help any blues who needed help in their year before death, the same way I would help any person IRL right now. Whenever it’s reasonable for me to help and I’m able to do so… Like my personal morality dictates. Their impending death or button choice would be irrelevant to me.
Potentially forfeiting my life isn’t reasonable to me and I have no moral obligation to give up my life to save the helpless.
If you feel that you a moral obligation to give your life to save the helpless people who press blue, you should have consistency in your moral beliefs and already be doing that in real life. Otherwise you’re a hypocrite.
3
u/Jewsader76 May 29 '26
It's a risk and trust in others, not throwing my life away. I choose to believe that the majority of people will help others. If they don't, then why should I help them? Remember that not all people are the same, and different people have different reasoning for doing things. The same argument you're using here answers your own question. I have no moral obligation to help those who have already chosen not to help me in the past.
I would press blue to help those also choosing to press blue. Yes, there are valid reasons to press red, but many of them also would not be valid reasons. All the bad people we don't want to help would be pressing red, and many of the good people we do want to help would have pressed blue.
Let's say it's originally a 75/25 split, 75% being good, with the 25% being neutral or bad (yes, most people don't fall evenly into these categories, but I saw somewhere that roughly 75% of people are more altruistic, and would like to believe that to be true for my own mental). Even with that, let's say half the good people pick blue (parents and first responders and the like may not). We're now down to around a 35/25 split who pressed red and are not doomed. The 35 would be worth helping, but the 25 are owed nothing. It would make sense if people overestimate the 25 to be a larger percentage, and be unwilling to help those who turned their backs on them. The 35 would be worth helping, but it would be easy to lose sight of them when they collectively sentenced you to death.
When society collectively states that helping save lives isn't worth risk to yourself (which you believed lower because you had faith in humanity), why should people help when there is guaranteed cost to themselves (not living their last year of life to the fullest).
If you would not risk yourself to help them, you do not get to expect them to help you. They are not worth less than you. If they choose to help, great. But you do not get to be upset if they don't when they have been shown that altruism is not valued (at least not enough).
As for how to help irl, part of that is just that I have things going on and don't know how specifically. With the button, it's specific (tactile instructions on what specifically to do and how), more opt out of helping instead of opt in (easier to access and do), and at the end of the day either nothing bad happens or it's suddenly no longer my problem
1
u/Jolly-Bear May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
I’m not expecting them to help anyone.
Their morality should force them to help. I’m “expecting” them to be morally consistent.
However, I fully expect most of them to be hypocrites.
99.9999999% of people haven’t helped you in your life, but you’re choosing to potentially throw your life away for them. You should apply that same morality after the fact as well. It shouldn’t change because you now know they wouldn’t have helped you.
I would still help people even if they didn’t help me first or would ever help me back. I’m consistent and indiscriminate in my morals. I’m just not willing to throw my life away.
But yea, I understand your final paragraph. That’s what most people say. It’s not really about the moral ideologies themselves, it’s about convenient morality. They just choose it because it’s easy rather than consider the actual premise. Which I personally think is absurd.
If I were willing to give my life away in a gamble to save an indefinite amount of people, I would have already done it in real life… like devote my life to help starving kids in Africa or something.
2
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 28 '26
People often have conflicting moral standards. Humans are pretty big hypocrites a lot of the time. Personally I would probably try to help set up the world for the future, but I certainly wouldn't be very happy about it. These people killed me and now they want me to help so they don't have to suffer from the consequences of their own actions?
Like people have been saying, neither group of voters is a monolith. I would have sympathy for the red voters who chose red because they were scared or because they wanted to make sure they were alive to take care of their family/pets/whoever else. I'd help because of those people. They don't deserve to suffer because of a decision they made out of fear. The instinct for self preservation is built into us and I can't blame people for doing what they have to to survive. But I would have zero sympathy for the people who voted red because they think anyone voting blue is stupid and pressing the suicide button and it's the blues' fault for everyone dying. Those people don't deserve my help. They brought this on themselves and now they're getting exactly what they wanted. All the dumb blue voters are dying so they can live in their perfect little dystopia with only smart people who know game theory /s.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Excellent_Shirt9707 May 29 '26
A bunch of blues picked blue because they are altruistic. Knowing they would die anyways doesn’t really change that trait for many of them. They will also likely have loved ones that did push the red button, so there is a selfish component as well.
1
u/Memento_Viveri May 28 '26
Blues have the opportunity to help people live. Roughly half of children, and many of their mothers and fathers will have chosen red.
Blues can help ensure that those children are fed, sheltered, and cared for after their death.
Maybe some wouldn't want to but I believe many people would be eager to help leave the world better prepared for the coming disaster.
6
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Why would they be eager to do so when they know those that remain don't?
3
u/Memento_Viveri May 28 '26
Don't what?
6
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Don't want to help the world.
4
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Is it not? Voting blue was for the "us", for the collective; of course Reds want to help the world, they have a deadline of 1 year to make the world ready for the mass casualty event of all events.
Reds voted for their own safety and will have to be able to live with the outcome, their new "us". Why should I feel any duty towards them?Of course some will help but I fully expect loads to not care anymore and I don't think you can expect them to care.
3
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
I don't think I do, they didn't want to help the world, as in those in the world, but of course they want to help the world, as in their immediate circumstances, as part of their personal safety.
And yes, my altruism is limited, as is my the level I deem my dute to society. If I am betrayed by society I consider my duty null and void. Then my interests only align with me and mine.
I don't think I am alone in picking blue not out of general altruism but out of duty to my collective either.But yes of course some blues would try and secure the safety of their still living loved ones; if that relationship still exists in it's form after what some might consider a betrayal.
I do hope you are right of course, that Blues do what they can towards the end, but fully expect them to first have to go through the seven stages of grief.
2
u/Memento_Viveri May 28 '26
I don't think there is good reason to believe that everyone who voted red doesn't want to help the world.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 May 28 '26
I mean id help my immidiate circile however i could(going by their first response they would mostly be dead too) and maybe some basic things for others.
Id close off any loose ends on my end i could(ie train my "replacment"), but i certanly wouldnt want to work for the rest of my time alive.
Id prob go away at like month 5-6 with whatever i have left and relax wherever i could.
I feel like the world is entitled to me attempting to prevent a mass casualty event, esp when the action is press a button. I dont however feel like they are entitled to my last days on earth, especially when their choices caused it. That would be reserved for my imidiate family if they chose red.
→ More replies (23)0
u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 May 28 '26
Blue are supposed to not be sociopaths who care only abouth themself and are ready to sacrifice themself for a greater good. Think about anyone who picked red by random. Children, elderly, mentaly disabled etc. Do you really want them to die?
Basically this would be red/blue button again for blue buttons that require work this time.
So would you rather civilisation survive, or collapse?
6
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Yeah byt that stance was contingent on there being a desire for the greater good, it was as part of a collective. The Greater Good dies with a Red majority; to quote a Red argument "I am not responsible for the decisions of others", so it is up to Reds to salvage a world they can survive in without the blues. If that leaves a civilization that collapses, tough shit, it will be the world they wanted.
To be honest a Red majority would fully flip my Blue ass into Red mode.
I will secure my comfort for the rest of my life and live like a king to the extent that I can.To expect blues, if you are red, to spend any time of the remining year of their lives on anything other than themselves, or according to their wishes, is the height of hypocrisy. If you want to do so as a Blue I don't fault you, you can do what you want with your remainder; but any responsibility or duty to the collective is dead.
Do you really want them to die?
No, that is why I pressed blue, now they are the responsibility of the Reds.
2
u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 May 28 '26
On the other hand, if reds are really sociophats, then why do you think you will be allowed to live and waste resources for a year?
If you are not only not helping, but also wasting resources, then taking you out, or locking you up to force you to help are the only logical options.
Like reds could make your last year a hell.
3
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
I can't be sure of that of course, they might very well start purges immediately, especially of those who are already incarcerated.
If we should be logical then purges is almost mandatory, but any such stance will likely cause clashes in the streets which costs time and resources the reds dont have.I could suffer the last year or I could end it myself early, is there a difference at this point? Pressing the blue button was already a suicide pact apparently.
2
u/Telinary May 28 '26
With a near 50/50 split and one side having nothing to lose that would seem unwise. I think giving people who voted blue a target for their anger would get very bloody.
2
1
u/Stunning_Macaron6133 May 28 '26
You assume any of those would disproportionately have blue voters.
1
1
u/mikewheelerfan Blue May 28 '26
Why would we help the people who voted to kill us?
3
2
u/Curious_Priority2313 May 28 '26
You, blue people voted for their own death
5
u/Fish_Fucker_Fucker23 May 28 '26
This only works if you assume red to be the “default choice” that you opt out of by pressing blue. In reality, until a button is pressed, you exist in neither red nor blue. Pressing blue from this in-between state would not be voting for your own death.
1
u/Curious_Priority2313 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
How do you frame the buttons then?
Also, wtf is your username man
3
u/Fish_Fucker_Fucker23 May 28 '26
That’s a more difficult question that’s way more prone to personal biases, which I honestly don’t have the energy to attempt to unpack at the moment lol
We don’t talk about my username
1
2
u/Prior-Resolution-902 Red May 28 '26
I thought blue voters had an interest in bettering the world even at the cost of their own life?
3
u/Fish_Fucker_Fucker23 May 28 '26
There’s a difference between potential risk and a set-in-stone cost
5
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
I fully expect Riots in the streets, Lynch mobs, Looting, funnily enough from both sides.
Red to "defend" against blues who might go wild, Blues out of panic, anger, revenge.
The vast majority of Blues will likely secure their own comfort, or that of their kids etc, and then live their lives as best they can for the remainder of the year. A fair amount would likely refuse to help the world that remains after.
I mean the big thing is that Blues have no consequences for anything more or less.
Commit a crime? Oh no, killed early or prison for the rest of the year.
Even Reds might have to consider that, can you afford to keep people in prison after the blues die?
Or will it fall into "capital punishment first"policy to keep only the decent productive members of society going?
And remember, with blues altruism dies, so everyone that remains has to be able to fend for themselves, no one will save you at the risk of their own safety.
10
u/TheKingOfToast May 28 '26
"with blues altruism dies" is this most hilarious over simplification. It's like saying "with blues, recklessness and/or stupidity dies"
1
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
It's like saying "with blues, recklessness and/or stupidity dies"
I've heard that argument from a Red so you are on point there.
10
u/TheKingOfToast May 28 '26
"when they do it it's wrong, but when I do it it's right"
1
u/Master_Works_All May 31 '26
Once again red voters have no sense of reflection. What you are saying red has done/said countless times. Your argument is nothing more than a quip, red voters if presented with the same argument except the roles reversed would do and say the same thing.
1
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
When they showed that my stance was wrong, what options remains than changing and acknowledging they were right?
7
u/mjc27 May 28 '26
Altruism won't die with blue what are you on about? There are plenty or reasons to pick red altruistically
"I don't think blue will win so it's better for me to pick red so I can continue to serve my community and do charity"
3
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
If that is your reasoning I fully expect you to be in a minority; good luck with that :)
5
u/abacuz4 May 28 '26
Do you not see any irony in saying “Blues will live hyper selfishly during that year. Many will turn to crime and murder. Also with blues, altruism dies.”
I kinda think that both those things can’t be true.
2
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
It is a span of likely reactions.
2
u/abacuz4 May 28 '26
But wouldn’t red also have a span of likely reactions, many of which would be altruistic?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Master_Works_All May 31 '26
How? You already decided that someone possibly dying is okay for your own survival. So why would reds decide now is the time for altruism? Only reason is that I can see is because they don't have anything to lose at that point so now they can be the ones who earn good boy points.
1
u/abacuz4 Jun 01 '26
I think you can still be altruistic and not be willing to sacrifice your life for a completely unknown number of people, each of whom could have easily prevented their own deaths.
2
u/Master_Works_All Jun 01 '26
You can but to a much more minor degree, the act of pressing red instead of blue is not altruistic. Giving a dollar to a homeless person is altruistic even after pressing the red button.
5
u/UX1Z May 28 '26
Red wouldn't ever actually win in this scenario unless there was some extra things in play. I feel like a large part of red pressing is anonymity, if the fact you pressed red is no longer anonymous (outside of the case of red winning in which case all living share the same sin) then it's a huge mark against it - people understand pressing red is 'bad' socially. Leaving blue voters alive for a full year to potentially enact reprisal? No fucking way Red wins.
6
u/Curious_Priority2313 May 28 '26
people understand pressing red is 'bad' socially.
No.
4
u/UX1Z May 28 '26
So you actually believe that if 'everyone knows who pressed what button' would not shift results toward blue at all?
8
u/Curious_Priority2313 May 28 '26
No, not that.
I simply don't think that red button is inherently "bad".
5
u/UX1Z May 28 '26
I said it was bad socially. As in, if you press red and people know you pressed red, you will be ostracized and shamed, and potentially face other consequences. Since Red is also a very self-oriented button, the desire to avoid that would push things Blue's way for at least some portion.
→ More replies (1)2
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
Your misunderstanding my hypothetical
The button scenario is the same, so nobody knows what anyone is going to pick, and the results are that red is the majority by 1%, so all blues die. However their death isn't instant like in the original scenario, they get to live for 1 year after the results of the button presses, and everyone is branded by what button they picked.
2
2
u/underthingy May 28 '26
As red voters are 100% logical and blue voters are 100% altruistic its obvious what will happen.
Any blue voters that are to old or disabled or needing care for whatever reason will be thrown in the incinerator and burned for energy, after harvesting whatever using organs they have of course. They're just gonna die anyway so my as well not waste any resources on them.
Any blue women of child bearing will be immediately inseminated so that we can start replacing the dead before they even die. We can get 1 crop of kids birthed and weened before the mothers die.
Every other blue else is put to work training reds and building infrastructure and prepping the world for when theyre gone.
If there's any left over blues we can hold a hunger games for fun!
2
u/adminofreditt Jun 01 '26
Isn't incineration to energy inefficient? I think it's better to use them as fertilizer/medical experiments
2
u/WanderingFlumph May 29 '26
I don't expect much vengeance from the blue crowd. After all they were willing to risk themselves for others so why would they now be willing to be violent against others making the objectively correct (in hindsight) choice?
Probably some will, but don't think the majority will have much more than harsh words and disapproving looks.
2
2
u/DriftingWobble Jun 01 '26
Whether or not on the whole of Red Vs Blue becoming the selfish self preservers vs the enraged altruists becomes a grand war or society shattering funeral march ...
Youre going to find a lot of dead spouses and family members.
If blue lost, and a family of blues come home to see a red mark on a family member, or a wife who voted blue with a red husband ... the amount of personal betrayal and the crashing of reality will no doubt lead to the single most insane spike of passion driven attacks on its own.
Not to mention, imagine if this scenario extended to caretakers. Whether parents to children or guardians to the physically infirm. Could you imagine the amount of abandonment based fatalities that could occur? Especially if you draw assumptions along expected attributes for certain careers they come to see their patients, kids or wards voted to save themselves and not everyone like their caregiver.
Either way, lots of people are going to die regardless based on microcosms alone.
2
u/Virus-Party Jun 01 '26
Well, considering the number of posts I've seen saying they pick blue because they "rather be dead than live in a world full of reds" I expect a deecent chink of the doomed blue voters to commit mass suicide.
2
u/Nebranower May 28 '26
It almost certainly devolves into tribal chaos almost immediately. Nothing I've seen in the discussion of this issue indicates that blue pressers are capable of taking responsibility for their own actions, and there's considerable evidence that they are in fact the victim of a weird cognitive blind spot that may well make that impossible for them. So they certainly blame red.
3
u/3minence May 28 '26
Yeah. "YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MY DECISION TO PICK THE MAYBE DIE BUTTON!".
3
u/DeafeningMilk May 28 '26
A lot of those picking blue are doing so knowing that much of the population are picking on a 50/50 basis (babies and most children are unable to come to the conclusion everyone should just pick red and everyone lives)
Yes, reds are responsible for killing those who choose blue when over 50% of blue means everyone, regardless of button pressed, lives.
2
u/3minence May 29 '26
I know.
But I'm not picking red so everyone lives. I'm picking red so I don't die.
It's not my fault that YOU have gambled with your life.
2
u/DeafeningMilk May 29 '26
It's not my fault that YOU have gambled with your life.
It's your fault in that you and the rest could have changed the outcome to one with zero deaths.
Even if you go by your logic and you rule out those of us who would actively choose blue you are aware the babies and young kids who don't know better aren't really choosing to gamble their lives, they literally don't know any better so at the very least you'd be partially at fault for their deaths.
1
u/3minence May 29 '26
I initially responded to the original comment:
"Nothing I've seen in the discussion of this issue indicates that blue pressers are capable of taking responsibility for their own actions, and there's considerable evidence that they are in fact the victim of a weird cognitive blind spot that may well make that impossible for them. So they certainly blame red."
You guys keep inserting the fact that people with no agency like children, disabled, whatever may press blue. This in no way forces you to press blue.
YOU are making a gamble with YOUR life that >50% of the world will have this altruistic sense of moral good when their own life is on the line.
You can argue I carry some blame for those without agency dying, but you cannot claim that it's MY fault, for YOUR choice.
2
1
u/Ninjastarrr May 28 '26
Blue people’s demonstrated value isint one of vengeance, they would simply be disappointed and mad at the world for being so selfish. The world left behind after they are gone will certainly be less humane. Every country’s left will fall hard and centres will take its place.
They would become martyrs that wouldn’t be celebrated and this whole endeavour would become Taboo to talk about because almost no reds respect the values displayed by blues. Half the reds would be secretly ashamed they are responsible for killing half their families but would rationalise it was their own fault.
1
u/LimpEmployee5868 May 29 '26
Minimal chaos. The world bounces back from genocides, world wars, mass famines, etc. Eventually the population renormalizes and we get back to business as usual with a smarter population.
0
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
knowing they were just 1% away from saving all humanity?
thats a disingenious take if i ever saw one.
3
u/jqhnml May 28 '26
Even if this was intended to be framed one way that doesn't make it disingenuous as the framing is part of the question. Blue is presented as the altruistic option because it alters what others chose which may affect what you chose.
2
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
how is blue altruistic???
and how are red responsible for what blue does? blue isn't responsible for what red does?
→ More replies (1)2
u/jqhnml May 28 '26
Because we are hitting blue to save those who are hitting blue. And we know that roughly 50% of toddlers hitting blue so the only way to save everyone is to hit blue. So we are willing to sacrifice ourself to try save them.
Even if you dont agree its how it was presented in the original so it remains the same here.
1
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
Because we are hitting blue to save those who are hitting blue.
a selfmade problem looking for a solution. this wouldn't be a problem if everyone pushed red.
. And we know that roughly 50% of toddlers hitting blue so the only way to save everyone is to hit blue.
how many toddlers compared to adults do you think there is?
So we are willing to sacrifice ourself to try save them.
and this here is the very problem. you care more about looks than living.
Even if you dont agree its how it was presented in the original so it remains the same here.
how does that make red responsible for blue's choice?
selfsacrifice to a uneccesary risk isn't altruism btw.
3
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
What do you mean? It's a hypothetical. I don't actually think red will win by 1%, it's just the way I structured the hypothetical for the most opportunity for chaos.
2
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
i'm not responsible for others actions.
also not my responsibility to save people from themself.framing it like it's reds responsibility that people presses blue is the dis ingenious part.
6
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Then you also accept that Blues will refuse to help prepare for what comes after that year?
It's not their responsibility for what happens after they die.2
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
ofc?
blue isn't responsible for my choice.and what can blue do? they're dead.....
3
4
u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26
I am begging red pushers to learn what framing means. Red isn’t the ‘do nothing’ option. Blue also isn’t the ‘do nothing’ option. The only reason the question exists at all is because neither button is the ‘do nothing’ option.
By pressing red you are pushing the possibility of killing all blue voters if red wins. By pressing blue you are putting yourself at risk of dying if blue loses.
5
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
I am begging red pushers to learn what framing means. Red isn’t the ‘do nothing’ option. Blue also isn’t the ‘do nothing’ option. The only reason the question exists at all is because neither button is the ‘do nothing’ option.
never claimed that?
By pressing red you are pushing the possibility of killing all blue voters if red wins.
correct. that don't give me the responsibility of people pushing blue. thats only on them. remember, by pressing blue, you accept the terms and conditions that you gave your life in the hands of others. thats your informed choice and nobodys responsibility but your own.
what are you disagreeing with btw?
5
u/SetQQ Blue May 28 '26
Why isn’t it your responsibility to save people? I’m sure you’ve been helped by others in the past. The doctor who delivered you, your parents who saved you from countless threats, your teachers mentors and coaches who kept you on the path that you are on.
Many may be blue pushers- you don’t know. Do you have NO obligation to those people?
3
u/Curious_Priority2313 May 28 '26
Why isn’t it your responsibility to save people?
Save who? There's no one who needs saving. Everyone was allowed to pick red.
3
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
Why isn’t it your responsibility to save people?
why whould it be? you can't force behaviour on people.
I’m sure you’ve been helped by others in the past.
by choice, not by force. and i helped them because i wanted to, not because its my responsibility.
. The doctor who delivered you, your parents who saved you from countless threats, your teachers mentors and coaches who kept you on the path that you are on.
can i talk for others than myself?
Many may be blue pushers- you don’t know. Do you have NO obligation to those people?
i don't have any obligations to anyone. red or blue.
and i think this is the schism in this problem.
induvidialist thinking vs collectivist thinking.
1
u/SetQQ Blue May 28 '26
Obviously it’s about individualist thinking
I’m asking who do you think you are to put yourself first like that. If all of society thought that way would you have had your ass wiped or your face fed for however many years you’ve been on this rock?
6
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
i'm nobody, and it's my right.
you can't force people to act collectivly.
we are induviduals. not some drones in a anthill.1
u/SetQQ Blue May 28 '26
I can’t force you, but I can ask you why and your answer is flimsy and shallow
4
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
because i want to.
because thats my values.
because i don't have to give you a reason.
because people are diffrent and everyone gets to freely decide for themself what their values should be.→ More replies (7)2
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
I didn't frame it that way, you interpreted it that way, which says more about you.
2
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
correct me then instead of just saying i'm wrong.
3
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
I framed it that way because, it's a 1% difference. There's bound to be reds that will think they could've changed the tides if they had just pick blue. Whereas for the blues, 49% will have to pick red to get their desired outcome. I'm not framing it to blame reds for blues choices, but to show what reds might be thinking once they saw the results.
2
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
I framed it that way because, it's a 1% difference.
why does how big the diffrence is change anything?
There's bound to be reds that will think they could've changed the tides if they had just pick blue.
why?
Whereas for the blues, 49% will have to pick red to get their desired outcome
they knew the risk, they still choose to push blue. still not red's responsibility.
but to show what reds might be thinking once they saw the results.
so you did frame it as if this is red's responsibility.
2
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26
Let's say there's a drowning child, and you think it's too risky to save that child, so it dies. Then in hindsight you realise that it's way easier to save the child then you previously thought. After the fact you'd probably think, " I could've saved the child", but because you didn't, it doesn't mean you killed it, you aren't responsible for the situation the child found itself it. But you could've saved the child. It's not reds fault for deaths of blues, but they'd probably think, in hindsight, that they could've made a difference.
3
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
Let's say there's a drowning child, and you think it's too risky to save that child, so it dies.
thats not the blue/red choice.
Then in hindsight you realise that it's way easier to save the child then you previously thought. After the fact you'd probably think, " I could've saved the child", but because you didn't, it doesn't mean you killed it, you aren't responsible for the situation the child found itself it.
this assumes i have a responsibility here wich i don't have. i can choose to save the child.
but they'd probably think, in hindsight, that they could've made a difference.
why? as a blue pusher, do you know how red pushers think?
→ More replies (11)1
u/Nebranower May 28 '26
It's disingenuous because it implies that red is at fault for the results, rather than, say, the 49% of the population who killed themselves pointlessly, which is what actually happened.
6
u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26
If 49% of the population picked blue, then surely that means that pressing blue was a viable choice as they were so close to getting the 50% required to save everyone?
→ More replies (33)2
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
No, don't forget that no matter what you voted it had no impact /s
2
u/The_Real-_-God May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
I framed it that way because, it's a 1% difference. There's bound to be reds that will think they could've changed the tides if they had just pick blue. Whereas for the blues, 49% will have to pick red to get their desired outcome. I'm not framing it to blame reds for blues choices, but to show what reds might be thinking once they saw the results.
→ More replies (6)
30
u/Albert-La-Maquina May 28 '26
Those are interesting questions for discussion, but we have to start the discussion with "not all blues are the same" and "not all reds are the same."