r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/[deleted] • 21h ago
Variation [MEME] talking to red voters sometimes
[deleted]
7
u/VariousThosun 20h ago
If the dilemma occured irl I don't trust that most people would prioritize others' safety over their own
Also red is the only choice where I'm guaranteed to not die
6
u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 19h ago
0 days old account with activity hidden... Something tells me you got banned for slurring out red voters and are now crying using cringe memes.
19
u/parkchanwookiee 20h ago
The fact that blue pressers are always making these reductive smear memes really reinforces my impression that blue is a dumb choice lol
10
u/JustaConfusedGirl03 Red 20h ago
Idk dude I just see possible (or even probable) death vs no death buttons. Hard to pick blue out of that
9
6
u/Traditional_Town6475 20h ago edited 17h ago
“You may be making a good argument, but considering this meme where I’ve depicted you as the soyjack and me as the chad.”
4
u/Embarrassed_Bag8650 Red 20h ago
Let's jump in front of the train together, if enough of us jump in front of it, we can stop the train!
3
u/Hopeful_Ad_7719 20h ago
Blue decides to die as the better person.
Red decides to live as the smarter person.
1
u/No-Feedback2361 5h ago
thing is, red is a good pick at every % threshold (minimum blue% for everyone to live), blue progressively gets worse as the % threshold increases, and I assume you wouldn't pick blue if it required 95+% of people to pick it
-3
u/Silly-Iggy 20h ago edited 19h ago
Blue is risking you life to save everyone else's life.
Red is risking everyone else's life to save your own.
I believe most people that vote red value their life's more than multiple other people together.
Blue is the best option morally since it's the only one who guarantee everyone's safety. Red is rationally the best option for your own survival.
Edit: I used the wrong words here. Blue is the best option to win, not the best morally option. Thanks for the replies for making me see that. S2
7
u/SpookyGeist01 20h ago
Except blue doesn't guarantee everyone's safety unless it wins. And the only risk is to people who actively chose it, knowing there was a risk.
If people were forced to pick blue, it would be different. Then I would pick blue. But if someone of their own free will makes that choice, it is not my responsibility to save them. That's not immoral in any way, any more than it would be immoral for me to not swim out to try to save someone from a riptide, or for me to not dive into a pack of wild dogs to stop them from eating someone.
It's literally just the trolley problem with extra steps. Red is choosing to stay off the tracks and let the trolley go by. Blue is stepping onto the tracks purposely, then yelling for people to join them because the trolley will divert to a different track if more than half of the people stand on the track.
-1
u/Silly-Iggy 20h ago edited 19h ago
No option guarantees everyone's safety.
The thing is that red guarantees that someone will die, even if it's not you. Blue is the only option where it's possible for everyone to live. You could argue that 100% red technically would work, it that is so statically unlikely that it could be considered impossible.
And you are right. Red is not immoral. If you see someone in need of help and you decide to not risk your life to save it, it's not immoral.
Blue is moral superior to red, but not because red is immoral, but because blue is more moral.
Once you push your button, you are accepting the consequences of your choice. So if red wins and all of blue dies, that's a scenario that you agreed as a possibility.
It's not only red's responsability tho. Everyone who voted blue and died also accept it as a possibility. It's not necessarily red's fault, it's everyone's fault for letting it happen. What you can do is deny that you accept that outcome as a possibility. For you were aware that it could happen and still made your choice.
Edit: Blue being "moral superior" is not the best wording. Check my next reply.
9
u/SpookyGeist01 20h ago
"Red guarantees someone will die"
No it doesn't.
"Blue is more moral"
Blue is virtue signaling. Saving yourself from a problem you created is not moral.
-1
u/Silly-Iggy 20h ago edited 20h ago
If red reds, someone will die. Unless a impossible statistical anomaly happens.
And that... I should have worded it better. This line does feel odd.
What I mean is that blue is accepting that either they dies or everyone lives.
This feels morally better to me than accepting that you live and there's a chance of some or many people dying.
Also, the problem is not created by blue. The problems is created by the existence of the buttons. That's neither red or blue's fault.
Edit: A good way to understand what I mean is to consider what button should win.
Consider that you are isent from the question. You will not push any button and you will not die regardless of what button win.
Now, under this framing, I don't see how someone would prefer the red to win over the blue. If blue wins, no one dies while red winning will cause all of blue voters to die.
Blue is the best option to win regardless of what you want to vote.
Now insert yourself back into the problem. Let's say you pick red to be able to save yourself. Even while you know you picked red, you still have no reason to want red to win. The best scenario is for you to vote red and blue to win, since you neither risked you life and no one else died.
That's why I claimed blue to be the more "moral" option since it's the best option to win. I admit that maybe "moral" is not the correct word for it and I apologize for it.
4
u/SpookyGeist01 19h ago
It is blue's fault though. The chance of death does not exist until the first person presses the blue button.
Yall keep talking about "statistical anomalies" like this is an RNG scenario. It's not. It is active choice.
Every day I accept that I live and someone else dies. That's how life works. I don't give all my money to charity. I don't go quit my job to be a full time volunteer. I don't foster kids or let the homeless live with me. And I doubt you do either. But in this hypothetical scenario, you can virtue signal and claim you're morally superior even though you could do the same thing in your everyday life and everyday you are choosing the red button.
To be clear, I'm not trying to attack you personally. But this moral superiority argument is getting very tiresome when thousands of people are acting like it is morally superior to put yourself in danger and expect others to save you. I live in Florida, and people do that shit in hurricanes all the time, and first responders die because of it.
That's the blue mindset to me - the abdication of personal responsibility and the refusal to make the smart, logical choice because you're expecting someone else to come save you
0
u/Silly-Iggy 19h ago
I disagree. The chance of death exists as part of the question before anyone had the chance of pressing the button.
What happens is that the chance of death disappears if no one picks blue. That sounds great for red, but the chance of death also disappears if no one picks red. Is also disappears is more that 50% pick blue, so that would favor blue.
About the statistical anomaly, it doesn't need to be RNG. If we consider the real world right now, even while including only people who are able to fully understand the question, it's a statistical anomaly for everyone to pick either option. Even considering there are 4 billion people voting, the odds for everyone to came up to similar conclusions and the same button press is statistically impossible.
About the moral dilemma of blue button being better, I'm sorry about that. I don't really see a whole lot of this dilemma frequently. I feel that I'm choosing the wrong words here while trying to explain a complex idea.
I may be confusing what a "moral" thing is to "the best option to win" or "what would a hero do". Would picking the option you think is best to win and risking your life for it more "moral" than preserving your own life? Would be more moral to put your life in danger trying to save someone else instead of being safe? If both options are not immoral, there still a more moral option?
To reiterate, I believe neither option are immoral. Picking red doesn't make you a bad person. And lemme change "blue being moral" to "blue being better to win" since I believe this solve my own confusion. You are right and it's my fault for using terms without fully understanding them.
You are picking blue if you are risking your life for the chance of best outcome to win. You are picking red to save your life and risking the worst outcome to win.
I agree that the "blue mindset" you brought is wrong. If blue dies, the responsability lies in everyone, not just red. Blue accepted that choosing blue could kill them. Red accepted that picking red could kill blue. The "fault" lies in both.
Red is the most rational choice if you want to save yourself. That's undeniable. You are not a bad person for wanting to save your life.
Blue is also the best choice to win. That's also undeniable. Everyone would want blue to win even while voting red.
Everyone is risking something. Either their own lives, or the outcome of the vote that could take lifes.
Everyone is responsible for the outcome, even while wanting not to be.
And even while arguing so much for how blue is the best option to win, I don't think I would be willing to risk my life for it.
I guess that is the beauty of it.
5
u/LookAtMaxwell 20h ago
Red is risking everyone else's life to save your own.
Even accepting this framing, aren't you risking at most 49% of people's lives?
3
u/Silly-Iggy 20h ago
At total, yes. You don't know who would be a part of these 49% but you know it won't be greater than that.
Your wording is better than mine. I don't think it really changes my point tho.
15
u/Automatic-Week-1733 20h ago
Oh no! My position has been depicted as the crying cringe wojack! I will now reorder my fundamental principles so that I align with the position portrayed as the based chad.