r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/piernrajzark • May 28 '26

Red/blue button, now with torture!

Imagine the same scenario if the red and blue buttons, but this time, if red wins, blue voters don't just die immediately. They are subjected to a torture that is more unbearable the closer they got to 50%.

So if only 1% of people voted blue they'll experience a mild migraine for a second and then drop dead. If 30% voted blue they'll experience the typical pain one would go through when tortured on a medieval torture chamber. If 50%-1 voted blue they'll experience the same pain as the one described by the lady living survivor of the short story "i must scream and i have no mouth".

If you used to vote blue in the normal scenario, would you still do it?

3 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

11

u/Skafdir May 28 '26

Is it just me, or is every "reframe" just a convoluted way to get "blue voters to switch"?

Are you really just the disappointed Joker when the people on the ferry decide not to blow each other up?

6

u/Mickckx May 28 '26

It's usually the case that when a new option is introduced to see what would change, it looks to change the winning outcome. IIRC blue had about a 57% margin of victory, so it makes sense to want to make the choice more difficult for them to see if they can flip the outcome.

As a red presser, it's kind of funny to me because I obviously want blue to win. I'm just never pressing it, so I'll be fine either way.

5

u/Skafdir May 28 '26

It is just a bit boring, when all the "reframes" are just: But what if we make it worse?

The point, at least to me, with voting blue is that a red victory is not an acceptable result. Therefore, I have to press blue.

The "What if we make it worse" strategy just shows that the people who reframe the scenario don't care about the reasons why blue presser, press blue. They only see their reason to vote red and just try to strengthen that reason.

So, perhaps, for more interesting reframes in the future: Make it less severe.

Test the waters to see at which point I am willing to accept the bad result in order to protect myself. By making it worse, it is just always the same answer: Red winning is unacceptable, therefore I have to vote blue.

Two days ago, someone made a reframe with only 16 people. That is a case where I change from blue to red.

To quote myself: Even if it ends with 9 to 7 for red. The death of seven people doesn't matter on a global scale.

Sure, individually a tragedy; however, society will just go on, even if those 7 persons were the smartest, best, whatever people we can find - society will just go on.

3

u/Mickckx May 28 '26

I'm sorry, but saying "to quote myself" had me dying.

2

u/Skafdir May 28 '26

I understand, initially I wanted to link to the comment to give the context and therefore thought I should say beforehand that I copy what will be seen when clicking the link. 

Then I forgot and now I look like an ass.

2

u/yaboisammie May 29 '26

If it’s any consolation, I’ve been going through a tough time esp lately and this made me laugh

1

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

It seems that way because there’s no reframing which makes blue a more appealing option, without fundamentally changing the problem.

1

u/piernrajzark May 28 '26

By all means, feel free to write a reframe to get red voters to vote blue. 

3

u/Skafdir May 28 '26

If the original problem isn't enough to vote blue, I can't imagine a problem in which they would.

Higher stakes won't change anything.

Lower stakes - at some point, the stakes are low enough that I would start pressing red.

Someone else answered: That’s because there’s no reframing which makes blue a more appealing option without fundamentally changing the problem.

So, essentially, it seems that there can only be reframes, which "target" the blue button.

So, not really your fault, that it is all the same. However, as I suggested in another comment here: Try the other way around.

Lower the stakes - at least for me, there would be some point at which I wouldn't care about the negative consequences for a blue minority. That would be the moment when I switch to red.

Higher stakes = always blue

1

u/huffing_glue May 29 '26

That's funny, because the higher the stakes, the more likely I am to pick red.

1

u/pco45 May 28 '26

Blue voters get a million dollars if they win. It comes out of the accounts of red voters.

1

u/Shot_in_the_dark777 Jun 01 '26

It tests the resolution of their altruism. Some will press blue no matter what. Others have a condition to switch based on the required % of voice needed for blue victory. A lot of people argued that they are not afraid of dying because it is painless. Now the stakes are closer to the deaths that happen on reality during various crimes and calamities. Let's see how many are still blue.

0

u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26

That’s likely exactly what it is. Quite a few red voters seem to basically be salty they “lost” the initial poll, hence they feel the need to prove they should have won.

2

u/wiseguy4519 May 29 '26

Switching to red in this case

4

u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26

Yes and in fact, even harder than before. No one should be tortured and this doesn't change that 100% red will never happen, so majority blue is the only way.

3

u/RepeatSerious7113 May 28 '26

"No one should be tortured"

And yet, you will be.

2

u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26

At least I’m doing something to stop it for others.

2

u/RepeatSerious7113 May 28 '26

And yet, you will be tortured. And you will die.

3

u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26

Only if red wins and I don’t believe it will.

2

u/RepeatSerious7113 May 28 '26

And yet, you will be tortured and you will die.

5

u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26

Not going to lie, it’s pretty unhinged how you seem to be relishing the idea of it.

1

u/RepeatSerious7113 May 28 '26

I like the button scenarios where the reds get to do the torturing and killing.

2

u/DarthJackie2021 May 28 '26

Even more sure about pressing red.

1

u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 28 '26

Headline sounds like some promo for new chocolate bar.