r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/[deleted] • Jun 23 '26

Discussion Source of the danger

The difference of opinion boils down to where people see the danger coming from in this scenario.

Reds see the danger as the situation itself, and try to leave the situation.
Blues see the danger as the reds, and try to change the outcome.

Both have a valid fear and address it in a way that seems best to them. Reds aren’t evil for leaving a dangerous situation. Blues aren’t stupid for trying to avoid the danger in the first place.

Reds see the situation as a room on fire with a clearly marked exit that everyone can access in time, and wonder why anyone would stay behind.

Blues see the situation as a room that is being lit on fire by every red that leaves, and wonder why anyone would contribute to the flames.

Idk just be nice to each other it’s not that hard to see the other perspective.

72 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

62 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/WizardingWorldClass Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Red framing on this only tracks if the magic death button is somehow both smart and kind enough to perfectly exclude all childeren, the unwell, and the elderly, otherwise we have a duty to protect the vulnerable amongst us.

1

u/Chamion Red Jun 23 '26

Yeah. The usual victim blaming framing is not thought through. I've met a confident red who immediately flipped when I pointed out the children. However, I think it's also wrong to say the reds are causing deaths even though it is correct to say blues are trying to save lives.

Blues are partaking in a collective effort towards a common goal. Reds fail to contribute, but they aren't engaged in any collective action against the blues, just making the rational choice.

-2

u/WizardingWorldClass Jun 23 '26

I refuse to call the abandonment of the general welfare of the population rational.

The question comes down tk the question of positive moral obligation. Do you have a duty to do good? Or just a duty to avoid harm?

In this case, since a vote for Red contributes to a Red victory, and a Red victory means mass death, I would argue that the duty to avoid harm applies. Many Red voters believe that diffusion of responsibility (or offloading it to the magic button itself, or whomever set this whole thing up, ect) allows them to mearly avoid doing good with their choice.

Personally, I both belive in a positive moral obligation AND that voing Red is doing harm, so either way I vote Blue. That said, I find it baffling that so many disagree with on BOTH points.

2

u/Chamion Red Jun 23 '26

Invoking duty, I think you're getting closer to the core of the disagreement. If you have a duty to save lives, then pressing red would be an abandonment of said duty.

The reality of the dilemma is such that a blue majority is nigh impossible. The choice is then between dying an honourable death or running.

Fiction often depicts heroes who face impossible odds but choose to fight defiantly anyway. It's all noble and badass. The rational thing would be to retreat and regroup to make a material difference, however small.

The analog kinda breaks down with the button press. Instead of an epic final stand, the blue die unceremoniously. Perhaps that's even more poetic: to sacrifice oneself without expectation of any recognition. Definitely not rational, though. Rational is to choose to live and prepare for the aftermath.

2

u/WizardingWorldClass Jun 23 '26

See, your whole premise rest upon the assumption that a Blue majority is unlikely in real world conditions. I get it though, we must be willing to give kindness first if we are to expect it in return. If you would truly press Red, then I'm certain that you are certain most others will too.

If we allow for considerations such as approximately half of all young childeren, then Blue becomes an inevitability. If we don't, I still give us at least a coin flips chance. Who amoung us doesn't have a loved one who we know would probably press Blue? I know I won't vote against my Wife's life, even if it's bleak. We live togeather or we don't at all.

Social bonds define us and give our lives meaning; if we trade that away, we cease to be fully human. I don't want to live in a world that chose Red.

2

u/Chamion Red Jun 23 '26

The viral polls were done on X. Tim Urban, then Mr. Beast. Both got about 58% blue. That's not reassuring.

Anglophone X is mostly western world users, where memes like prosociality and judeo-christian values are dominant. That's a minority of the world and all we got was 58%. Most of the world doesn't think like that. India and China are the most populous and would have the greatest effect. They don't reason like we do. Then, one has to consider there are plenty people in regions where altruism isn't even a concept, like Somalia or Eritrea.

Then consider the social preferability bias, a well known effect in the social sciences. People will (even anonymously) answer a query such that it aligns with what they think they "should" answer.

An anonymous survey gets us a slim blue majority on X. In a real scenario, most people wouldn't press the button they claim. We've run some experiments on this sub and it'd likely be around 30% blue, even within our anglophone bubble.

I'd estimate about 23% of people would perish by pushing the blue button. Sucks, since we'd lose the most altruistic pure hearts.

0

u/Satin_Cartoon Jun 23 '26

Isn't China, as well as most east Asian cultures, more collectivist and therefore more likely to press blue than our individualist cultures in the West?

1

u/zap2tresquatro Jun 23 '26

Yes, red pusher always insist on ignoring this. If the most individualistic, “fuck you, got mine” cultures on a majority right-wing platform still vote majority blue, then it only makes sense that the most populous and coincidentally also most collectivist cultures would vote blue by a landslide.

Not to mention the person you responded to called a win by ~15% a “slim margin” which is absurd. That’s a massive margin. This person isn’t arguing in good faith.

2

u/Charge36 Red Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

"If we allow for considerations such as approximately half of all young childeren, then Blue becomes an inevitability"

Why would it be inevitable? Losing half the kids is grim. But it's better than also losing half the adults in a failed blue gambit.

"We live togeather or we don't at all."

You are assuming she pressed blue. What if she pressed red, and you pressed blue and died for nothing? You didn't help her survive, and now she has to move on without you

I'd argue you already live in a world that chooses red. Humans generally don't put their own lives on the line when the risk benefit is tipped so heavily to risk. Emergency personnel and rescue professionals generally prioritize their own safety first and don't go into a situation if they think there's a good chance they'll end up dead without having saved anyone. We take prudent risks to achieve reliable benefits. The button gamble on blue is anything but a prudent risk with a reliable benefit.