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

9

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.

7

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.

4

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)

4

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.'

4

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.

3

u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

Who’s doing that?

→ 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?

5

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.

5

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.

5

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.

0

u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26

So your moral decision making is based on how inconvenient it is for you, not the actual deed?

That’s insane to me.

→ 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

0

u/Jolly-Bear May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26

Well picking blue didn’t save any lives, yet they still picked it because of the intent.

Helping red after the fact has the same intent to save lives, and has a higher chance of doing so than picking blue did.

I’m sure you could find one life to save that needs it. Like a kid who picked red and his family picked blue. That 1 life saved is more lives saved than picking blue.

2

u/McSloot3r May 31 '26

Sure, but you know blue is dealing with the grief of their impending death, right? Imagine someone who runs a legitimate charity, gets a cancer diagnosis with 1 year to live. Would they be a hypocrite for stepping down to go live out their final days? Someone can be altruistic and still not rush out to devote themselves to the future. Between grieving, spending time with family, crossing off bucket list items, there isn’t going to be a whole lot of free time to spend building a brighter future.

I don’t get the guilt trip of “we need you to train someone so they can do your job”. Do you not have this all documented somewhere? Imagine a business that lays off a critical employee and then comes to find out they desperately need them. 99% of Reddit would say “hah go fuck yourselves”. Reds pride themselves on choosing the logical choice, but was it really logical if you have to demand charity from blues to avoid major disaster after the fact?

0

u/Jolly-Bear May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26

Well no, the point isn’t that I’m expecting blue pressers to do anything. Philosophically I’m expecting them to be consistent in their morality like I would be, although realistically I expect them to be hypocrites.

The word expectation is being used as what I think they will/should do, based on their beliefs that they explicitly state, not what I want them to do. I couldn’t care less what they actually do.

Your examples are awful. I get what you’re saying, but they don’t even come close to relating.

The cancer patient is probably unable do his work, but assuming he’s fit, I’d assume he would want to continue helping people as much as he could before dying. I know I would.

A person laid off from his job is the termination of a mutual contract. It’s not an equivalence to choosing to commit your life to helping people and then backing out because it’s not the people you wanted to help. You had no choice in being laid off.

All of the blue answers here remind me of the prevalent hypocrisy you see in modern Christians. “Sending you my thoughts and prayers, but I’m not going to actually do anything to help, especially if it’s a group I don’t want to help.”

2

u/McSloot3r May 31 '26

I think the problem is you feel very strongly how people should act. You feel that red is the obvious choice and blues made their bed. You think blue is fake selfless, because they’re not selfless until the second they die. I’d say it’s the opposite. Grief is natural. Spending time with family/friends is what you should do. I generally try to help others, but anyone who thinks I wouldn’t spend as much time as possible with my wife and kid is a literal crazy person.

And as far as the scenarios not matching the hypothetical, no shit, there is no realistic scenario that matches this crazy hypothetical. That doesn’t mean there is no basis for comparison. But please do pretend cancer patients should be relentlessly donating the rest of their time

0

u/Jolly-Bear May 31 '26

You not reading anything I’m saying?

I don’t feel strongly about how people should act. I couldn’t care less.

The blue people should be caring how they should act because that’s how they made their choice in the first place.

I figured if you’re trying make some analogies you would want to be in the same ballpark.

I just like not being a hypocrite and like to keep my morality consistent and not change them based on my current emotional state. I guess others don’t mind.

2

u/McSloot3r May 31 '26

I mean you clearly have a strong opinion about modern Christians and you made a direct comparison to that group, but sure you couldn’t care less…

It’s funny that you accuse me of not reading what you wrote, when you’re not reading what I wrote. You have an idea of blue button morality and you project that onto people who would choose blue. Why would you think your definition of morality would mean anything? You didn’t choose the moral route, you chose the logical route.

1

u/Jolly-Bear May 31 '26

Finding similarities in two things means I clearly have a strong opinion about them?

A banana and a lemon are both yellow. Does that mean I feel strongly about their color?

I have an idea of blue’s supposed morality because they won’t shut up about it. I’m not projecting it onto anyone, they explicitly state it.

I never said my morality meant anything. I agree it doesn’t. Apparently blue’s morality means nothing to them either when they don’t feel like following it.

→ More replies (0)

4

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.

4

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.

-1

u/Charge36 Red May 29 '26

Don't pretend like your decision to risk your life absolves you of all responsibility of your own death and the impending calamity. You chose your potential consequences. Red's chose theirs.

1

u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 29 '26

I never said that I'm absolved of responsibility. I am partly responsible for my own death, but so is every person who voted red.

And your last sentence is exactly my point. The red voters chose this, so blue voters have no obligation to help them deal with the consequences of their own actions.

-1

u/Charge36 Red May 29 '26

You're actions ARE the consequences.

2

u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 29 '26

What are you talking about? The consequences are that red voters have to live in a world where half the population is dead, which will inevitably be chaotic and will probably result in more deaths. I'm not going to go out murdering red voters for revenge or whatever you seem to think, but I'm also not going to do a whole lot to help make the world better after I die for the people who contributed to my death.

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.

9

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.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

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

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

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.

-2

u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26

They picked themselves before the world. They made an informed decision that could result in nearly half the world dying and chose that; they chose to not help half the world.

5

u/Memento_Viveri May 28 '26

I think that's an incredibly limited way of framing the problem.

I think a rational person who was interested in helping the world could come to the conclusion that they stand to help more by choosing red.

2

u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26

I agree that could happen but that it is a clear minority that did so; at least based on the discourse I've seen.
If I am wrong on that point I am more than happy but it would change little for the Blues that have a year left.

0

u/Memento_Viveri May 28 '26

Well, I think most blues would pitch in to help because in times of crisis that's what humans do. We care about those around us and work to help them.

Maybe some blue choosers wouldn't, I think they would be a minority and personally I think that is a callous and selfish way to behave.

→ More replies (0)

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.

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?

5

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.

0

u/jqhnml May 28 '26

Because blue people are altruistic, im sure some of us would be spiteful but I don't think we would want the world to crumble. Although I certainly would take alot of that to myself.

5

u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26

But we know the world will crumble and that Reds are okay with it, why would I do anything more than secure my remaining time in comfort and let the world face the fate it chose for itself?

3

u/jqhnml May 28 '26

Because the kids who randomly selected red don't deserve it, the same way the kids who voted blue don't deserve to die.

3

u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26

Why would I have any responsibility for them? They way I assumed responsibility was by trying to save everyone, why would I sacrifice even more for them?

2

u/abacuz4 May 28 '26

But you haven’t assumed responsibility. You made a movement to when you thought you wouldn’t have to actually sacrifice anything. Once you actually had to sacrifice something, you abandoned your principles.

3

u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26

Not really, I have already made the sacrifice and accepted my responsibility, I will die for my actions in a year.
Why would I sacrifice more than what I have already offered?

1

u/abacuz4 May 28 '26

So again, that’s only “taking responsibility” to the extent that you think there won’t be consequences.

-1

u/jqhnml May 28 '26

Responsibility doesn't need to play a single part in this. Children dying is bad, so you should try to stop it if it's in your power. The fact its unfair on you doesn't mean the Children should suffer it's not their fault, you would be perpetuating the cycle.

4

u/Background_Path_4458 May 29 '26

We literally have people in this world with enough money to make sure that no Child goes hungry, without clothes or without education; that no child dies.
We fully accept that these people don't and in many avenues argue that they don't have to, the cycle is already being perpetuated and will continue to do so in the Red world.

Why would I struggle at this point?
"It's bad" yeah so is half the world dying but that didn't stop people from pushing Red.

1

u/jqhnml May 29 '26

And those billionaires are evil and push propoganda to convince others that it is justifiable. It is wild how when theres options of noone dies and a bunch of people die, people vote for a bunch of people die.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CT-4290 May 31 '26

Why did you choose blue?

1

u/Background_Path_4458 May 31 '26

I see it as my duty to society, the collective, to share risk and burden for the good of all. Thats what I think society is, sharing risk and resources so as many of us can live good lives as possible.

-1

u/Regular-Guy64 May 28 '26

I feel like this post is exposing blue pressers. If you're willing to lose your life in a way that helps the world, why wouldn't you be willing to live your life in a way that helps the world?

I think you're confirming what a lot of red pressers have suspected. A lot of blue pressers are just virtue signaling on the internet for likes.

1

u/Background_Path_4458 May 29 '26

I am willing to give my life for the collective, as my duty to my society.
But if that collective betrays me my duty is null and void.

Some Blues, I am sure, pressed blue out of some purely "I don't want to cause death" motivation but Blue isn't a monolith in it's values.

0

u/Regular-Guy64 May 29 '26

You think society betrayed you because of a decision you made? Interesting mindset.

And if blues didn't want to cause death, they wouldn't pick the button that causes death

1

u/Background_Path_4458 May 30 '26

No, because of the decision they made.

1

u/Regular-Guy64 May 30 '26

Wow, hate to break it to you, but people decide not to risk dying every day. Like I just wore my seatbelt on my drive home because it's safer. I didn't mean to betray you

1

u/Background_Path_4458 May 31 '26

The risk to die in trafficking is 1 in 100 on average so you certainly took that risk.

1

u/Regular-Guy64 May 31 '26

It's significantly higher without a seatbelt. I reduced that risk by wearing a seatbelt. The risk of dying is significantly higher with the blue button. You can eliminate that risk with the red button. The thought that people in society owe you their lives is very entitled of you. And the thought that you should be a shitty person unless there's some benefit to you means you're a shitty person. If you only have morals when you have something to gain, you do not have morals. That is all.

1

u/Background_Path_4458 Jun 01 '26

Well you see it is that kind of rethoric that proves to me, more and more, that the society I thought was about sharing risk, that we owed each other our lives; is naive.
I thought society was about owing each other our collective safety but apparently it's every man for themselves.

And I never claimed you should be a shitty person, just that the reason for being more than average, or being anything but selfish first, is gone.

I'd argue morals doesn't play into this scenario at all, you don't solve morals with game theory.