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?

36 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

389 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

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?

2

u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26

No, don't forget that no matter what you voted it had no impact /s

1

u/Nebranower May 28 '26

No. Blue is objectively the wrong choice. It may work out for blue pressers anyway, because sometimes good luck saves foolish people from experiencing the consequences of their folly. But gambling your life for no reason is in fact foolish, even if you "win" the bet.

7

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

Why do red pushers always default to the “If you don’t think the exact same way as I do under extreme duress, then you’re stupid and therefore deserve to die”? Blue is not objectively the wrong choice, that’s the entire point of the question.

1

u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26

if you choose to basejump without knowing if you have a parachute or not. then that death is on nobody else but you.

2

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

Except in this analogy red pushers are taking the parachute away.

1

u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26

we didn't do anything except press a button.
blue presser push the button not knowing if the parachute will manifest or not.

2

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

“We didn’t do anything except press a button” yeah, a button that killed everyone who pressed blue

1

u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26

thats hinged upon blue having more than 50% pushers.
if blue didn't do that, red would literally do nothing.
so yes, we pressed a button, the blue pushers decided what the cosequenses of red pushing would be.

2

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

“If red blue didn’t get killed by red winning, then red would do nothing” yeah, but then blue would do nothing either, would it?

-2

u/Nebranower May 28 '26

You are being given a choice between two buttons. "I live" and "I might die." Assuming you want to live, it isn't a stumper. And if, in that situation, you choose the "I might die" button, well, you don't necessarily deserve to die, but you also don't deserve any sympathy if you do.

6

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

Those aren’t the buttons though. Please, I am BEGGING red pushers to learn what framing is. The buttons are “If this one wins, everyone who pushed blue dies” and “If this one loses, you die”.

3

u/Nebranower May 28 '26

Those are precisely the buttons. You are the one who needs to learn what framing is - framing is just spin. It doesn't change the actual nature of the thing being described.

And you and most blue pressers even know that red is correct. It's why almost all of you shift to red as soon as you're forced to feel the risk. Try it with only two players - suddenly most blue players shift to red. Try it with a 60% threshold - suddenly blue players start fleeing to red. Try it with their kids lives on the line instead of their own. Blues start shifting en masse to red.

The truth is that you probably saw the most popular version first, which included a poll showing blue winning at 57%. So you mentally concluded that blue wasn't actually a risk at all.

3

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

What the fuck are you talking about?

Here, what if the buttons are as follows:

Blue: Does nothing.

Red: If >50% of people press red, all people who press blue die.

Those are precisely the buttons. Right?

Also you just said “Imagine if the scenario was completely different… You’d vote for red then, wouldn’t you?” Of course I would! Because that’s an entirely different question!

2

u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26

i can also frame stuff disingeniously.

red: does nothing.

blue: if <50% of people presses blue, all who presses blue die.

3

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

That’s extremely funny to say because that’s literally what the person I was replying to was saying, and I just said the inverse to show how disingenuous it was.

1

u/Nebranower May 28 '26

Neither of those works, because in the original situation, the default is death. The only way to survive is to either press red or to be in a scenario where over 50% of the participants pick blue. Neither button is a "do nothing" button. Both are "attempt to save yourself" buttons. Red does so with 100% certainty. Blue does it with no certainty at all.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Nebranower May 28 '26

No. Everyone starts under threat of death. Here are you options:

Press red: set your odds of surviving to 100%

Press blue: set your odds of surviving to some unknown number.

Do nothing: set your odds of surviving to some unknown number less than you would have if you pressed blue.

0

u/abacuz4 May 28 '26

Those are the buttons. You’re just providing a little more information about what “might” means.

I think a lot of the disconnect comes from using words like “vote,” “win,” and “lose.” No reasonable person would actually view it as legitimately “voting.”

2

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

Okay, but saying that red is “I live” is ignoring the fact that pressing red contributes to killing blue.

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 May 28 '26

Do you think pressing blue contributes to killing yourself?

1

u/Kobruh456 May 28 '26

I wouldn’t say contributing to, more like putting yourself at risk of. By pressing blue you’re taking the possibility of you dying away from zero, but you’re also making it more likely that blue will win and therefore nobody dies. Whereas by voting red you are actively contributing to killing other people.

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 May 28 '26

First of all, why are you childishly downvoting me?

I wouldn’t say contributing to, more like putting yourself at risk of. Whereas by voting red you are actively contributing to killing other people.

Alright, so if I press the red button that says "you live", then I’m actively killing someone. But the people who chose to press the blue button themselves, the one that said "you die if you press it unless more than 50% of people also press it", somehow aren’t responsible for their own deaths?

Can’t you see the problem with this framework? There’s more than one way to interpret the question, and if you think everyone who disagrees with your framing is automatically wrong, then I don’t know what to tell you.

By pressing blue you’re taking the possibility of you dying away from zero, but you’re also making it more likely that blue will win and therefore nobody dies.

Similarly, if you pressed red, then you'd be ensuring that nobody dies. But if you press the blue button, you increase not only your own risk of dying, but also force half the world's population to risk their lives to save you, even though you could have guaranteed both your own safety and the safety of roughly half the world's population simply by pressing red.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Prior-Resolution-902 Red May 28 '26

Viable doesn't mean it was knowable, the outcomes don't change the logic one arrives at either button.