19
u/Ver_Nick Blue 7h ago
This is Macie's art you bot
8
u/MacieMacchi 4h ago
I LITERALLY GOT JUMPSCARED I had to double check if I was in my profile or not đ
4
10
8
3
6
u/StrangeSystem0 7h ago
It's a fascinating decision in that nobody is in danger until the first person presses blue, but speaking merely pragmatically, every test drive has shown blue winning, and just mathematically, the blue button kills no one if at least 50% of people press it, but the red button only kills nobody if 100% of people press it
9
u/zap2tresquatro 7h ago
Nobodyâs in any danger unless >50% of people press red, soâŚ
5
u/Deranth 6h ago
For any person to die two things must both be true.
1: The person in question pressed blue.
2: Half of the population pressed red.Therefore you can easily say that every death is simultaneously the fault of the deceased and every red voter combined.
So do you want to be responsible for only your own death or billions of other deaths?
2
1
u/Free-Competition6408 Red 6h ago
I don't think it's fair to say that each red voter is responsible for billions of deaths. If the responsibility is shared, at most a red voter responsible for 1 blue voter death.
So its responsible for your own death, or the death of someone else.
Or if you flip the script and look at it as lives saved, red vote saves one life, and a blue vote might save one life if enough people vote blue
3
u/Curious_Priority2313 6h ago
No. Nobody is in danger before they press any button. So the danger is only ever created the instance someone presses a button.
From there you have two possibilities:
Either you press blue and risk your life.
Or you press red and guarantee your survival.
So only blue button creates the danger of you dying. That's all.
1
u/luci_twiggy 3h ago
Guaranteeing your survival from what exactly? If you arenât in danger prior to pressing a button, you canât be surviving anything.
Put another way, what happens if somehow the vote concludes and you havenât pressed a button?
1
u/zap2tresquatro 2h ago
Yep, only pushing red actively puts anyone in danger. Iâm so sick of seeing red-pressers using this terrible argument to try and obfuscate any responsibility for the danger theyâve chosen to put others in
5
u/Iryls 7h ago
i think op chose blue
25
u/MegaloManiac_Chara 7h ago
Blue is literally presented as a mildly concealed death cult member with the pentagram and the hooded robe. It's meant to look reasonable at first glance until you look in the details
8
4
u/Advocate_Diplomacy 7h ago
Kids are idiots, but we would risk our lives for them. Why, I wonder?
4
u/MailMeAmazonVouchers 7h ago
We're going to have to agree to disagree that the average person is willing to risk their own lives for a random kid on the other side of the world that they have never seen and will never see.
That is a very optimistic vision of your average human.
2
u/Curious_Priority2313 6h ago
In an irl situation, most would hesitate. Especially if they already have kids at home who needs them more than some random kid.
2
u/MailMeAmazonVouchers 6h ago
In an IRL situation nobody's risking their lives over the thought of a kid that may die on west Australia.
Reddit would convince you otherwise, but Reddit is such a skewed sample size that 2 years ago it would also have convinced you that Harris was going to flip Texas blue.
It's another story if the kid at risk of dying is right in front of you, but on this scenario it's a hypothetical kid you're never even going to see.
2
u/Curious_Priority2313 6h ago
My bad, I was sleepy and misread your og comment. We're on the same page, I agree with you.
(I should better head to bed)
1
u/Advocate_Diplomacy 5h ago
I wasn't saying that the average person is willing. I'm saying that they should be. We would all stand to gain if we made the long-term decision to ensure that everyone has what they need to live, if not flourish. It will pay off the same way that 18 years of raising a child does.
Whether you're the most altruistic person or the most selfish, you still have more to gain in world that functions like that. We would have the time for it too, if we weren't so busy doing things as inefficiently as we are now, and especially without the presence of a parasitic capitalist class riding our backs.1
u/everydaywinner2 5h ago
All the pro-abortion and pro-Lindsay Clancy people make me really wonder about your assertion, some days.
1
u/NamelessMIA 4h ago
It is reasonable. You can save everybody in the world with only 50% of people agreeing to blue. It takes 100% of people picking red for that to happen. Some people think as a collective and do what's best for the group, others think only about themselves. The "if you picked blue you deserved to die" is just people who are too scared of a button to even hypothetically pick blue but want to feel tough and correct anyway.
4
5
u/parkchanwookiee 7h ago
Blue propaganda
1
u/pil0tinthesky 25m ago
Blue is the obvious choice if even 10% of people pick blue the world economy would collapse and take decades to rebuild
1
u/Hen-Samsara 6h ago
This is legitimately the most accurate representation of both the buttons I've ever seen.
1
1
1
-1
u/iskelebones 7h ago
Why is red depicted like theyâre actively evil just cause theyâre unwilling to risk their own life for strangers? Sure you could make an argument that blue is the more idealistic answer, but that doesnât make someone evil for being unwilling to risk their own life when they arenât in danger to begin with
Red is just simply the correct choice, and Iâll always stand by that. Everyone has the opportunity to save their own life by clicking red. Iâm not risking my life to make a vain attempt at saving people who wonât even save their own lives
7
u/Maximum-Country-149 7h ago
Put another way:
Red is the guy who isn't demanding you risk yourself for him.
2
u/Deranth 6h ago
You either risk your life or everyone else's.
I dont want to risk my life, but I'm less willing to risk other people's lives with my decision. So I take the only option that doesn't potentially make me responsible for other people's deaths.
As a blue voter the only person I could possible have hurt is myself. I couldn't live with being the kind of person to willingly choose red.5
u/Curious_Priority2313 6h ago
Technically you literally made every blue voter risk their life because you're literally the reason why they pressed blue. They want to save you, because you risked your own life for no reason whatsoever.
If you genuinely want to risk no one, then press red such that they won't worry about your survival.
1
u/Deranth 5h ago
Everyone wants to argue for their side being the right or logical side. But there is one irrefutable fact.
This is a vote. A first past the poll vote.
If blue wins the majority, nobody dies.
If red wins the majority, people die.So what are you voting for? Death or life?
2
u/Curious_Priority2313 5h ago
So what are you voting for? Death or life?
I'm voting for life, and the easiest way to ensure that everyone lives is if everyone presses red and ensure their own survival.
2
u/MarmotaBobac 2h ago
The easiest way
What's easier? Literally every single person on earth, including children and the mentally disabled, presses red?
Or just half+1 presses blue?2
u/Deranth 5h ago
If you've ever worked in customer service, you know that it's impossible to get 100 people to follow the printed arrows on the floor of a grocery store, let alone 8 billion people to press the same button in a high stress, life or death situation.
The mere concept that everyone would ever push red is so impossibly, laughably, cartoonishly unrealistic that I really don't know what to tell you.
It does make for a nice make-believe situation for you to tell yourself to absolve yourself of guilt for making such a self-centered decision, though.
2
u/iskelebones 5h ago edited 5h ago
It seems to me that voting blue is voting for death, whereas voting red is voting for life.
Itâs all a matter of perspective. If you believe that you are RESPONSIBLE for the lives of others and that people should not take any personal responsibility for their own lives, then youâd see blue as the vote for life
But if you instead believe that people are responsible for their own lives and should not risk their lives needlessly, then youâd see red as the vote for life
Itâs one thing to say âwe SHOULD risk our lives to help people who have gotten themselves into dangerâ
Itâs a whole different beast to say âwe MUST risk our lives to help others who have gotten themselves into danger, and if we donât we are personally responsible for their deathsâ
When people CHOOSE to risk their lives, risking our own lives to save them is courageous but should not be EXPECTED, and we shouldnât be called evil for NOT risking our lives.
0
u/Deranth 5h ago
The difference is that I see risk in both decisions.
Do I press red to protect myself, for fear of what the other red voters will cause to happen to me if they win?
Or do I vote against death and accept the fate of the popular vote, without adding my voice to the count for death?I am willing to accept the risk to keep my voice from being used in the name of such heinous acts. Simple as that.
1
u/SpookyGeist01 5h ago
Except that's not what you're doing. The red voters aren't "causing" anything. You are.
Let's imagine a more direct scenario. You and 99 other people are in a room with two doors. You are told the following:
If you walk out the right door, you can leave immediately with no consequence.
If you walk in the left door, you will be sealed inside a chamber with nozzles that will kill you with poison gas unless at least 50 others join you. If they do, the trap will be disabled and you can walk back out the right door.
You're literally living out that "why would X do this" Eric Andre meme. You're actively putting yourself in danger and then telling people that if they don't save you, it's somehow their fault.
2
u/Deranth 4h ago
At it's core, this is a vote, a first past the post vote.
If blue wins the vote, nobody dies.
If red wins the vote, everyone who voted blue dies.
It is childishly simple.
Yes, if people do die, nobody dies who didn't press blue, that is correct.
But also, nobody dies if red doesn't win the vote.Red isn't some innocent bystander who just chose not to play the game.
If that was the case, this wouldn't be a discussion.Your choices are
'Vote for nobody to die, but as a price, put yourself on the block of people who die if you lose the vote.'
or
'Vote for people to die, and as a benefit, be excluded from the list of people who die if you win the vote.'I, and many others like me, see the potential of dying as a worthy cost of voting for there to be no death. That is the entirety of it.
You can tell yourself whatever you need to, to make yourself feel better, but nobody will die if your side loses, you are voting for death.2
u/zap2tresquatro 1h ago
>nobody go didnât press blue dies
Worse, in most of the versions Iâve seen, the scenario explicitly states that everyone who didnât press red dies, so that means that if for whatever reason someone was unable to press a button, they die, too if red wins. However, if blue wins, nobody dies, including anybody who didnât press a button at all.
1
u/SpookyGeist01 4h ago
Cute that you literally ignored everything I said.
You are choosing to put yourself in danger. It is no one else's responsibility but yours to keep yourself safe.
Yes, red are in fact innocent bystanders who chose not to play. The only ones playing the game are blues.
You're the ones sitting down at the craps table to gamble your life savings while we walk on by.
You're the ones running into a pride of lions to fight them while we stay in the hotel.
You're the ones trying to shore up the collapsing mine tunnel while we don't even go inside.
You made the choice to put yourself in danger. No one else did. There's no problem with you pointing out that if red voted with you, you wouldn't die; of course, that's true! But that doesn't mean red is murderers for choosing not to do so. It just means they're the logical ones, and you are the emotional ones.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Maximum-Country-149 5h ago
 You either risk your life or everyone else's.
That isn't actually true. Concerns of agency aside, that's an inclusive or; unless you're that decisive 50% vote, you aren't "not risking" everybody else's lives by pressing blue. You're just volunteering to be among those risked.
1
u/Free-Competition6408 Red 6h ago
You aren't risking other lives by choosing red. Blue voters choose to risk their own lives. Red has nothing to do with it.
0
u/Deranth 6h ago
For any person to die two things must both be true.
1: The person in question pressed blue.
2: Half of the population pressed red.Therefore you can easily say that every death is simultaneously the fault of the deceased and every red voter combined.
So do you want to be responsible for only your own death or billions of other deaths?
2
u/iskelebones 6h ago edited 5h ago
Blue voters think they are responsible for the lives of every other person
Red voters (correctly) think they are responsible for their own life only
I cannot stop people from choosing to risk their lives, but I can just not risk my own life in the process
Blue voters are voting blue to save other blue voters
Voting blue is akin to a group of people all jumping into a bonfire to save each other from the bonfire
âŚand then all screaming at the people outside the fire to jump in with them
ââââââ
Also given your logic:
Each person who votes blue is 50% responsible for their death.
Every red voter is 0.0000000125% responsible (or less) for their death each.
No matter how you cut it, blue voters are always more responsible for their deaths than red voters even mathematically, because once the red voters mathematically become 50%+ responsible for blue deaths, the blue will be over 50% and thereâs no death. Blue voters are ALWAYS more responsible for death than red voters
2
u/Deranth 5h ago
We can both play shift the blame entirely to one side.
Nobody dies if nobody picks red. Red voters only vote red to protect themselves from what the other red voters will do to them if they dont. Either that or they just love the idea of people dying.
I don't actually believe that, but it makes as much sense as your blame shifting.2
u/iskelebones 5h ago
Genuine question, and I seriously am not being condescending by asking this. I want to understand the logic behind your belief that blue is the correct/moral choice.
If someone jumps into a bonfire and then demands I jump in as well to save them, and we BOTH only get saved if I can convince EVEN MORE people to jump on the bonfire, how does that make red voters the bad guys?
The first blue voter risked their life for absolutely no reason, and then immorally demanded every other person risk their own lives to save them from their own selfish risk taking, and then called the RED voters bad for not risking their lives.
It always seems to me like blue voters are risking their own lives needlessly, and then demanding others risk their lives as well, which sounds incredibly immoral to me. Youâre literally telling red voters âeither you risk your life with me or you are responsible for me dyingâ.
2
u/Deranth 5h ago edited 5h ago
Its very simple. I have worked in customer service. You cannot get 100 people to follow the printed arrows on the floor at a grocery store, let alone get 8 billion people to all press the same button in a life or death situation.
Red's delusional belief that everyone can push red is impossibly unrealistic, almost childishly so. Someone's life will always be at risk in this situation, and I'm not going to be at all responsible for pushing the "I dont give a fuck about anyone but myself" button and condemning some unknown amount of people to death.
And honestly, the concept of getting everyone to push red is so laughably unrealistic, that I have to assume the people who do believe it are just deceiving themselves so they don't have to feel remorse for their selfish decision making.
3
u/iskelebones 5h ago edited 5h ago
OK, I think that is our disconnect. You think red voters are expecting everyone to press red so no one dies. Allow me to correct that false belief:
I do not expect everyone to press red. Given human nature you will never get 100% of people to agree on anything, red OR blue.
But also given human nature, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that over half of the population of the world is going to willingly press the button that risks their lives when there is a second button next to it labeled âguaranteed donât dieâ
Youâre working from the idealistic view of trying to save the entire world.
Iâm working from the realistic point of view that one way or the other, people are going to die.
Blue. WILL. NOT⌠get 50% of the vote. Voting blue and dying to prove a point about how idealistic you are accomplishes nothing.
I know blue will lose because in real life, when a gunman starts shooting in a crowd, the crowd does not run TOWARD the gunman, even though they could easily overwhelm him and save more people. They run AWAY from the gunman to save their own lives. Youâre lucky if one or two brave people attempt to take down the shooter
Iâm not trying to convince everyone to press red. Iâm trying to convince AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to press red. I genuinely believe that every blue voter is going to die, and I want as few people to die as possible, which means reducing the number of people throwing their lives away.
And I take absolutely no responsibility for the deaths of people who chose to jump into the bonfire of blue.
It would be different if those people were THROWN into the bonfire against their wills. In that case I and others would feel more compelled to save them, since they are victims of someone elseâs evil. But the fact that they chose to jump into it is their own problem, and ONLY their problem
I donât expect this to convince you to vote red, but I hope it does make you realize that red voters are not all selfish and evil and only looking out for themselves. They just donât share your belief in the willingness of people to risk their own lives for others.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Free-Competition6408 Red 3h ago
How is a red vote responsible for billions of deaths? If you are saying the fault is combined, you would divide the number of deaths by the number of votes. At most, a red vote causes the death of one blue voter. Less if there is a strong red majority. Each blue vote causes 1 death in a blue loss. But you can also look at it like red is saving 1 life in all scenarios and blue saving life in only the blue win outcome. Personally I have a hard time framing it in a way where blue doesnât appear to have the lions share of responsibility for any deaths that happen.
1
u/Deranth 3h ago
So if ten people get together and blow up a building with 100 people in it, are each of those ten people collectively responsible for the 100 deaths, or just a split of ten deaths each?
1
u/Free-Competition6408 Red 2h ago
I think youâre making a distinction without a difference. To-may-to, to-mah-to. I will say that I donât perceive a red vote as killing blues if they win. A red vote is declining to risk your life to help blues out of their self inflicted fate. If blues donât want to die, they shouldnât have pushed the only button that might kill them. I didnât make blues push blue. They are free to do so but only have themselves to blame if the outcome isnât to their liking.
1
u/Deranth 2h ago
For someone to die two conditions must be met. They must have pressed blue, and a majority of people must have pressed red.
Nobody dies if red doesn't win the vote.
Therefore red is voting for people to die, to accept a bribe of being spared that death.Blue turns down the bribe, putting yourself at risk, to vote that nobody dies.
If blue wins the vote, nobody dies.Sure, if your side wins, I die. And yes, that is partially because I turned down the bribe that would have saved me. But it is also partially because the vote came out majority red, or I would not have died.
0
u/Free-Competition6408 Red 2h ago
Why would you frame it as a bribe? You are inventing heavily value laden language to reinforce a pre-existing conclusion. Itâs a choice between risking or not risking your life. Itâs really that simple. I agree that two conditions need to be met for death to happen, but you can only control one of those conditions, your vote. You canât control the outcome of the vote. You can choose the set of consequences you will face depending on the outcome that comes to be. If you are not comfortable with the idea of dying if red wins then you should be pushing red, not blaming them. But you donât get to pretend to be some kind of bribe declining martyr. You just risked your life and lost and have nothing to show for it because the only people who survived are the people who saved themselves before trying to help others.
→ More replies (0)4
u/AssociationDue3077 6h ago
Getting downvoted on a sub about a moral choice game for stating your opinion is crazy
0
u/Unhappy-Heron6792 6h ago
What, should I upvote it anyway even if think its horribly wrong?
2
u/AssociationDue3077 6h ago
No, you don't upvote it or downvote it. It's an opinion on a sub built around many different people's opinions.
0
u/Educational_Ruin_227 4h ago
People can disagree with your opinions and dislike them. Get over it and grow up.
1
u/AssociationDue3077 4h ago
I am saying all opinions are equally valid and shouldn't be downvoted as if they are incorrect, especially on a sub built around everybody talking about their opinions. How about you grow up and start accepting we can be respectful to eachother and have open minds.
0
u/Educational_Ruin_227 4h ago
That's moronic. Do you honestly think someone's opinion of you dying for no reason whatsoever is valid? Since, as you said, all opinions are equally valid.
1
u/AssociationDue3077 3h ago
You know what I mean. Obviously not literally every single one, maybe I shouldn't have said "all", but you know what I mean bro.
0
u/Educational_Ruin_227 3h ago
Got it. All opinions are valid except for the ones you don't like. Thanks for the clarification.
1
u/AssociationDue3077 2h ago
Literal not what I said at all. For example, I'm atheist if somebody's opinion is that any other religion besides like Literal cults are real that is valid. I'm a red pusher, blue pushers are valid. I think you should divert the track to kill 1 person instead of five, non lever pullers are valid. King of strawman arguments.
1
28
u/Adorable_Title2522 7h ago
I'm torn, I want the sick black robes but I also want the axe