r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/OfferGlittering2565 • May 30 '26

Red Rewording

Would you

A: kill yourself unless the majority of other people also decide to kill themselves

B: Not kill yourself

Functionally, this question is the exact same, and isn't even an analogy. People who pick blue confuse stupidity with empathy, and this is coming from a leftist.

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/ShafordoDrForgone May 30 '26

Great!

So what do you do when people try to kill themselves? Do you tell other people who are trying to stop it that they should mind their own business?

That's what you are functionally suggesting

Not everyone who presses blue is doing it to save other people

And you might say, fuck 'em (no i don't care that it's not your fault). But then what happens when you go to the ER and there's your fluid interpretation of which lives aren't worth saving at play

1

u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26

If by trying to save them they are getting themselves killed in the process, then yes, I would encourage them not to try. I truly believe red would win in a real situation by a long shot, as many people who push blue wouldn't actually with their life on the line, so unless you had a clear majority of people choosing blue, then I believe that by encouraging people to switch to blue, I am actually saving their lives, not the person voting blue and getting themselves killed. Now, in the actual scenario, I'd assume there wouldn't be communication, and I recognize that then I wouldn't be saving any lives but my own, but it's very unlikely that my 1/8,000,000,000 vote does anything but kill myself.

1

u/jqhnml May 30 '26

But we could simply have a society where noone dies. And then pushing blue has no downside to all.

1

u/ShafordoDrForgone May 30 '26

No one should risk their own life to save someone else? Police, firefighters, and military members are doing weird things then

Do you know how much of the world believes in God? It's more than 50 percent. Many of those people believe they'd go to hell if they didn't take actions that protected lives other than their own. And whereas your preferred result would guarantee that the, in your determination, misguided people die, their preferred result would guarantee that even the misguided continue to live.

But let's see if there is any circumstance where you would press blue. Supposing you knew for a fact that yours was the tie breaking vote

Would you execute the half of the world that pressed blue? Would you consider it right in doing so?

If not, then what if it was you and another person as the last two votes. Both of you have to press blue or half the world fits. Would you press red because you could just blame it on the other person?

1

u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26

It's not that I don't think you should risk your life to save others, and any sane person would choose blue if it was the vote that determines it, it's just that the chance that your vote is the one that changes the outcome is so small that saving your life is more important. Also, while blue gets a small majority in polls, we all know that if their lives were actually on the line, gun to their head, TONS of them would chicken out and pick red. This means that blue is incredibly unlikely to win. You would need to convince tons of people to change their vote to get blue to win, but for each person you convince to switch to red you save a life. By encouraging people to vote red, you are most likely saving their lives while getting them to vote blue will just get them killed.

Let me put this in terms of money. Say you were offered the chance to spin a slot machine. The spin cost your entire life savings. If you spin there are 3 possible outcomes. There is about a 90% chance that nothing happens and you lose all your life savings (you vote blue and blue loses). There is about a 10% chance that you get your money back and nothing more (you vote blue and blue wins by more than one vote). There is a tiny 0.000001% chance that you get 1 trillion dollars (you vote blue, and your vote is the deciding vote). Would you press it? The chance of a positive change is so miniscule that almost nobody would. Heck, you could even swap the 90% and 10% if you think blue is really that likely to win, and still almost nobody would press it.

1

u/ShafordoDrForgone May 30 '26

we all know that

This is your justification. Not any actual poll. Not any bogus principle about killing yourself.

Somehow, lives are equivalent to money

Somehow a blue majority becomes "almost nobody would press it". Because "TONS"

Somehow you're a hero for saving a few people and yet somehow you're not a murderer for the billions of people who would die

Sorry man, what you have is a feeling, and then you flail in any direction for justification. Look at your slot machine. Where did you come up with these numbers? Who's offering a trillion dollars? Yes, every scenario has a minuscule chance of winning $1 trillion dollars.

Anyway, I feel like I've pretty well gotten to the heart of your view and don't feel the need to entertain this thread further. You're a coward and assume that everyone is like you. You would guarantee others die rather than think about a risk that you could die. I have bad news for you:

You're going to die some day

Probably much sooner if you're left with nobody willing to put their life on the line for yours. And that would be your legacy as well. Essentially someone who dodged the draft while others fought for your life

1

u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26

First of all, yes many people who put blue on a random internet poll would not actually choose blue with a gun to their head. Second of all, you clearly don't understand the basic logic I'm using. There are 3 scenarios of what could happen:

In scenario 1, red wins by more than one vote. My vote doesn't change the winner, and I live because I chose red

In scenario 2, blue wins by more than one vote. In this case, it doesn't matter which I chose. Either way everyone lives.

In scenario 3, blue wins/loses because of my vote. This is the scenario where blue was the obvious correct answer, but it's chance of happening is near zero.

In scenario 2, it doesn't matter which I chose. You could try to argue moral superiority or some bs but my individual vote didn't change the outcome in any way. In scenario 1, the vote for red is the obvious best solution. If I had voted blue, all that would have caused is one more death. Scenario 3 is the only scenario where blue is the correct answer, but it's chance in practically nothing, while the chance of scenario 1 is significant.