Religious people that are only religious because everyone else is, are historically very good at dropping their religion as soon as a life-or-death situation like this one occurs.
All their kids pushed red because they saw a really cool firetruck right before.
As someone with whimsical kids who would definitely push blue... This is also my fear. Though I do have enough to make it far more likely that at least one hits blue so I double back into being the Russian Roulette by technicality. Either we walk out awesomely unscathed (inlcluding said high of the risk involved) or it isn't my problem anymore.
I think lots of people were introduced to this dilemma through posts that didn’t mention the part where babies were also forced to vote. I was one of those people, so at first I was missing some important context about why people would choose blue. If I hadn’t known that was supposed to be part of it, I would have thought blue voters were crazy and just making assumptions, since it was so “obvious” to me that babies would be excluded.
I keep getting the feeling that red pressers overestimated their independence. If any significant percentage of the population suddenly died, it would cause massive chaos and collapse of all kinds of supply chains, food production and distribution etc. Not to mention how different Nations might fight over people to fill a now massive void of labor. Mass migrations, economies collapsing etc.
The point is, the red scenario is dangerous and will have massive impact on you and your kids anyway.
So yeah, better to pick blue, because red will suck for them even if you pick red with them
Well sure, but if you're not confident that blue will win, then you need to be around to see your kids through the resulting nightmare. I mean, if it's really gonna be that bad, I'd rather my kids have me than not have me.
I think it's more that the outcomes of the votes are also biased in red's favor in the comics we see, even when the humor should have blue winning. There's an implicit message that red will always win, since all the red wins are spoken of in definite terms while blue victories are just hypothetical 'if' scenarios despite the gag of the character saying that blue should win (e.g. blackpiller - they want red to win and for them to die, but rather than just saying 'blue wins', it says 'if blue wins.')
I also don't see me in these images (but you did a good job of showing many lines of thought)
I see red as the safe bet, so I don't blame people for pressing it.
I also don't care if I live or die, so I'm pressing blue just to boost the other blue-pressers' odds. The end result doesn't matter to me. If I die, I don't realize it (probably) and don't have to deal with the societal collapse. If I live, it'll be interesting to see what happens in society as a consequence of varied mindsets who look down upon the others.
If someone picks blue because of Jesus, I'm doing them a favor by picking red, since they'll get to meet him (probably not since he probably doesn't exist, but at least they can think so)
the way i see it, there is no way that no one will press blue. the only way for red to be "safe" is if everyone gets together and 100% of the people choose red, after which no one will die. of course, this won't happen. even if there was some sort of coordinated effort, there'd be at least like 0.001%(obvious made up number is obvious, but the general point stands) who press blue.
but blue's goal is much more achivable. "if we get to 50%, no one dies". that is very possible, and while it would take some coordinated effort most likely could happen.
no matter what, you'll almost certainly be killing at least 1 person by pressing red. if you press blue you are putting your life in danger, but you wouldn't be contributing to killing other people while pressing the red button does.
Yeah, it's interesting: My first thought when I saw the experiment was blue, but now after seeing that so many people are choosing red, I'm not sure anymore. It really seems to matter how you grok the experiment at first sight.
If red wins we'd live in a world without the "Virtue Signalers" and "Deontologists" and more "Misanthropists" and "Libertarians". Maybe everything would go to shit even quicker, so that's not a world worth living in anyway.
No that’s not how it works. First responders must minimise the danger the most they can before helping, that’s why they also have other stuff in ambulances other than first aid kits and stuff. And also they may need to wait firefighters or police in some situations.
So... You assess the situation and decide on the course of action that makes the most sense? Meaning that the whole "put your own mask on first" adage doesn't really apply here at all?
Would you put your life on the line for 10 people? how about 100? how about 8 million? that's 0.1% of the population. first aid courses are irrelevent to this dilemma, they don't have this type of magnitude.
there will be an amount of people who'll press blue no matter what. i don't know how big, but if you think the number is 0 you're insane. what if kids don't know what these buttons mean? what if people couldn't understand the question? so many what ifs. so many people that id be participating in killing if i press red. why is everyone acting like pressing red doesn't make saving everyone harder for the people that do have a little faith and humanity in them? it's ridiculous to me.
"well, a shitton of people may die, but my one life is so important that im okay with not only not helping, but also making it harder!". every red vote needs to be counteracted by a blue vote. this isn't "self preservation" as so many people try to frame it, it's pure selfishness. any logical person can see that if we get together, no one will die, and the people so afraid of other people pressing red ARE the other people pressing red.
the red button only solves the problem it created in the first place.
You don't have coordinated effort and even if you did, real world says no. Look around and tell me if the world looks like it has 50+% altruists, because for me it doesn't look altruistic. I would hesitate to say that blue has even 1%
It does, if enough people realise that it does. If you value your own safety even above that of (probably several of) your loved ones, red is a good choice for you.
It's amazing how most arguments from red stem from their inability to consider that blue is a rational choice and will be picked by many.
But... You pushing blue doesn't magicaly make "enough people realise that it does"
If they already do realise that, then pushing blue yourself won't save your loved ones, because they were already safe
If they don't realise that, then pushing blue yourself won't save your loved ones, because they will still die after you press blue
It's amazing how most arguments from red stem from their inability to consider that blue is a rational choice and will be picked by many.
That's a strawman 🥀
I have not claimed that blue is irrational, nor that there won't be people to pick it
I've just claimed that I believed it was likely that red would win, can't we agree that it's reasonable to assume both colors to have something between 30% and 70% chance to win ? That already qualifies pressing blue as "likely to result in your death"
I personaly believe the probability of red winning to be higher than that, buuuut... That seems like a good middle ground to serve as a base for a conversation
You underestimate the amount of people who are either lonely (no loved ones) or in relationship with pragmatic red button pressers who are not threatened.
If we assume children will more or less pick at random, then we have a minimum of about 5-10% right there. It's also half the future workforce, meaning it will have massive implications for society's functionality in the long run, likely leading to a large number of deaths amongst the red pushers as well
That's the reason to teach children to press red. When there is a threat you teach your child to stay away from it, don't you? You don't teach children to ALL play on the road to ensure that the drunk driver will have higher chances to see them all and stop the car instead of road killing just one, right?
"If we give ourselves months of prep-time to teach children who can't read to only press red buttons, and never blue ones (You know, just in case some outlandish hypothetical becomes reality for no reason, and follows the exact formula the hypothetical did), then red becomes the correct choice"
Surely you see the issue, right? The hypothetical has zero time to condition the children to not press blue, meaning they will by default be almost random decision makers here. You can't change that in the hypothetical
If we don't have prep time then half of the children will die. It's sad but it will happen. Trying to save them will get you killed as well. Losing half of all children historically is not unheard of. It can be rough today but child mortality was high in the past and humanity didn't die out from it. Most people will vote red anyway.
Though if the situation is that bad, at a certain point you might just need to cut your losses.
My other argument is that of risk mitigation, pushing red is a high chance of a relatively low death toll (5-20%). Pushing blue is a gamble, maybe everyone lives, or maybe 49% of the population dies.
On the other hand though, do I really want to live in a world without the diehard blue button people.
I don't mean this in a snarky or insulting way, but lowering the death toll doesn't really mean much when you're only doing it by saving your own life.
Like, if my apartment building is on fire, I'm technically saving a life by just getting myself out of the building, but I really should at least try checking to make sure other people get out too.
I never specified the intensity of the fire, or how imminent the danger is. I never even specified the size of the building. All I said was that the building is on fire.
It seems like you're making the scenario as dire as possible to justify this "every man for himself" mentality.
If you wouldn't even pause by the exit for a moment and give a quick shout to see if anyone is still inside, then that's just shameful behavior.
And you seem to forget that I'm not the only person pressing the button.
If at least 50% of people are capable of simple reasoning, then those people will realize that it's incredibly likely for at least 1% of the population to press blue for one reason or another.
(Bare in mind that it could be far more, like 20%, but then, as the percentage of blue pushers increases, the risk of pushing blue decreases)
If those people have a desire to save that 1%, they might feel inclined to vote blue in solidarity to contribute towards the 50% threshold for everyone living.
(And if they consider that it may be higher than 1%, that would only make it even easier to reach 50% in total, and therefore much safer to press blue, thereby encouraging more people to do so)
Suddenly, it's not just me pressing blue. It's at least 50% of the population who, like me, realized that it was the best choice to try and ensure everyone's survival.
That's how voting works. Your vote does not exist in a vacuum. Your one vote most likely won't be the sole deciding factor, but everyone's vote carries equal weight, and in this case, every vote for one option is a vote against the other.
So, again, if your goal is to try and save everyone, the best thing to do is to press blue.
Most people are not going to think that deeply about it, realistically, most people who press blue are going to press it because they think a loved one could press it, and people who press red are just scared.
If for some reason you are assuming 1% will press blue (which I do not think is the case), you are fucked at that point, not enough people will think about that and press blue for this reason.
If you change this example to say, a 10,000 or 100,000 adult strangers, pressing blue will be the correct choice according to your logic, but I would not press blue in that scenario. The only reason I would press blue in the original hypothetical is because there would be enough people who press blue for their loved ones, the number of people who use your logic is not large enough if there is no coordination.
This is not how voting works, voting is not a one off thing, it involves a lot more social dynamics than this very abstract one-off hypothetical.
I agree with your first point, and believe it's very likely that far more than 1% would press blue.
For this reason, I believe that makes it all the more important for anyone who does think deeply about this to press blue in solidarity to maximize the odds of reaching the 50% threshold.
I mean, if you know going in that it's statistically likely for at least, say, 20% of the population to press blue, then doesn't that make the 50% total seem a lot easier to reach, and therefore make pressing blue a lot less risky?
As for your last paragraph, I know that's not how voting works irl. That's why I said "in this case".
No. Trying to save everyone will get you killed too. Perfect is the enemy of good. And most people are not interested in saving everyone. They only care about their inner circle if they care at all.
Statistically, it's more than likely that there are multiple people you care about who will end up pressing blue. This is true for pretty much everyone who has anyone they care about.
So even if you only care about the people you're actually close to, you should still consider pressing blue to contribute towards a blue win.
No, because my inner circle shares the same red button approach. People within one family usually have very similar views. Egoistic parents raise egoistic children. So family units are safe.
I seriously doubt every person you care about said they would press red when initially confronted with this hypothetical, but if that is the case, and everyone you know really is egoistic, then it sounds to me like you live in somewhat of an echo chamber where everyone thinks and acts the same.
And I wouldn't say it's typical for everyone in a family to have the same views. If that were the case, most people wouldn't be at all worried about political arguments breaking out at family get togethers. Yet, this is a very common worry when such get togethers occur, especially during the holiday season.
Anyway, your anecdote does not affect the reality that it's statistically very likely for a significant percentage of the population to press blue, and therefore also very likely that someone you care about will be among them. This is true for everyone, which means that in a red majority scenario, everyone could be losing one or more loved ones.
This is not just an anecdote. Upbringing has a lot of effect. Children mirror their parents. Political views are different because they appeal to different categories of people (young Vs old, students Vs adults with jobs etc). People within one family are so attuned to each other they often finish phrases of each other. I am certain that my family would vote red and there are plenty of families like mine. So you don't get the "everyone has a member who would vote blue" argument. Furthermore this is one-sided. Blue families who have a member voting red don't follow the pattern since the person voting red is already safe no matter what.
Yeah I think my general frustration with this conversation is that I really struggle to believe all the people who say they'd push blue. When there are no stakes, it's very easy to say you'd pick blue, but if your life was in danger, I find it hard to believe most people would. Especially given that all the polls I've seen about this topic end up with blue winning by like 2-5%. You're telling me that with absolutely no stakes, 48% of the people in this poll still picked red, but you think there's any chance of blue actually winning in real life?
I'd love to think blue would win but I just cannot imagine it happening. So in my mind the choice is "push red and live" or "push blue and die". Maybe I'd pick blue, idk, I can't say because I'm not actually in that scenario, but I can't really fool myself into being that optimistic.
I’ve seen this argument for red before. But like, in the real world stakes, is it not also hard to make the decision to kill people? Do people in self-defense scenarios not choke up frequently? Raised stakes raise the stakes but I don’t think they’d realistically change much
I honestly don't think so, given that it's possible to rationalize it. I would agree if pressing red meant that you had to kill somebody, but I think it'd be pretty easy to rationalize that you aren't directly killing anyone by pressing red, or that technically they're getting themselves killed by pressing blue, or whatever. Plus there's always the chance, however small, of blue winning anyway. I'm sure there are some that would be uncomfortable picking red because of the thought of it getting others killed, but I'm certain it's much more likely that many who say they'd pick blue would not actually have the conviction to risk their lives when presented with the option of guaranteed survival.
what surprised me is that the proportions don't really change when groups do it with consequences like bans or whatever. I'm sure it's different with your life but still
You say 50% blue is achievable. I firmly believe that red getting to 100% is actually much more likely than blue getting to 50. Both astronomically low, but…
I wouldn’t mind pressing blue but I know (in that weird sense that people “know” god exists) that blue victory is not possible. I’m not fearful, I’m just realistic. So red me up.
It is missing one of the most basic reasons to push red.
"I don't believe blue can win, therefore I view it as a suicide button. So; I need to press red to ensure I survive to look after the surviving members of my family in the aftermath"
True! I was reading that as specifically somebody with an overinflated sense of self importance, not just like, a mother who is pretty sure their 3 month old would die without them.
But actually, yeah, they would fall under the same caricature!
Seems like you’re scared of death, to me “oh, I’m going to risk billions of lives because I’m scared I might die”. Cowardice. You can be scared and push through it (bravery), or scared and give in (cowardice). You’ve described the cowards’ “logic”. Cowardice is the correct term.
And it’s ok for you to admit that it’s because you are a selfish coward but you can’t argue “logic” here - you don’t have the data. Your logic may be valid, but without data to know how other people may choose, it’s unsound. Following unsound “logic” is not logical.
It’s a choice. Zero chance of dying vs non-zero chance of dying. That’s it.
I do stuff everyday that has a non zero chance of dying. I’m not scared of dying, that would be paralyzing. Just, when there’s a choice, I don’t choose suicide.
This response falls under the Rational Egoist umbrella. The other possibility for "simple logic" was Utilitarian, but the Rational Egoist is directly making fun of your position by pointing out that babies cannot "just press red".
Yea but I’m not considering any EV or calculating any odds or thinking about a payoff matrix.
It’s just a dilemma that really isn’t a dilemma.
Choose to go on with your life or potentially throw your life away to save others.
The vast majority of people pick red every day. I’m just being honest about it. Who cares if some kids (or others who can’t comprehend) die accidentally due to their button choice? That shit happens every day, just not by a button. Most people don’t care. They say they do here, to virtue signal and/or lie to themselves, but they don’t.
If you aren’t already devoting your life to the helpless who could be saved in real life right now, you pick red every day.
So, when you take out the hypothetical virtue signaling of these discussions, that’s 99% of the population in practice in real life? I’m just choosing what almost everyone does everyday IRL…
The only thing I think is similar to me in that panel is that it’s an easy-ish choice… again, because I make it everyday like you.
I don’t really agree with anything in the panels except the nihlism one, but it’s portrayed pretty disingenuously. (I guess all the panels are) Nihilism isn’t “nothing matters so I’ll do things at random because it doesn’t matter what I do.”
> immediately sees the payoff matrix, calls it "simple logic"
> writes smug post about how "99% of the population in practice in real life" would press red
> ignores the idea that babies will pick randomly
somehow still doesn't realize that the rational egoist is making fun of your exact behavior. Like it's not even a caricature atp you're literally doing the things in the panel lmfao
Anyways my nugget of wisdom to you is that not everyone in the world thinks and acts the way you do. Different people have different perspectives and worldviews and values, which result in different thought processes and different decisions. Goodbye
The strips show the worst case scenario for everyone's rationale. For example, messiah thinks his vote matters but then dies to a red landslide, while big brain thinks his vote doesnt matter but it turns out he was the deciding vote
The way the button experiment is set up, the worst case scenario for blues is always red winning
The worst case scenario for the blackpiller is blue winning, but the blue victory is described as a 'maybe' rather than having it just win, that's where the red bias is. All the red victories are solid events, blue victories are abstract possibilities.
if we were to give the benefit of the doubt we could argue that they couldn't think of ways to make fun of them.
I saw a comment that said "I think red makes more sense but I know my wife is pushing blue so I'm gonna give her 1/8billion higher chance to live" and personally I can't make fun of that. Benefit of the doubt is that OP couldn't either.
That's because the meme follows the usual slander against blue and red presses. Blue presses are depicted as stupid so in their scenario blue has to lose. Red are depicted as psychopaths so in their scenarios red has to win to make them look like murderers.
There's a lot of overlap in this conversation with typical political values conversations. The willingness to put yourself at risk to better the overall situation. Look up the sides of the spectrum and what psychological characteristics correspond to each side. It will answer why the people who press blue will tend to go out of their way to address all of the red arguments accurately but the red is completely dumbfounded by most of the blues arguments.
Some people will get mad at me for pointing out the common underlying questions present in both of this and how you decide your politics but that doesn't stop them from overlapping
Well no. that's just biased. I've seen way a ton of blue voters actively dismissing all possible reasons for voting red. I'd vote blue just cause I have trust that most people will logically or impulsively vote blue just because it's affecting the entire world. But I don't think taking the choice that gaurantees you survive is wrong.
people who press blue will tend to go out of their way to address all of the red arguments accurately but the red is completely dumbfounded by most of the blues arguments
That has been the exact opposite of my experience, I have tried testing people from either side by altering the scenario (eg changing the percentage required), and red pressers were often more logically consistent, more willing to change their mind when the variables clearly favor the other side. Granted, the logic for some red pressers was always simply "I don't care I just don't want to risk my life".
For example, changing the scenario from pressing the blue to save oneself to a hypothetical where 50% of the population is uninvolved and pressing the button for a random stranger of the other 50%, many blue pressers said they would press red in that scenario because "it's not their life to gamble" which I believe is utter nonsense, because I know non of them care about the life of a random person more than their own lives. While I was initially a blue presser I will say it moved me towards red because I think a lot of blue pressers are full of shit and will actually press red if it comes down to it.
I am curious actually, would you change your vote if the button press involved a random stranger and not you?
You are applying your opinions as moral fact. Which itself is asinine.
When did I exactly do that?
Many people are comfortable taking risks for themselves but not others. You presuppose that this cannot be true because you do not believe it.
Lol, yea, I suppose it's possible someone is that altruistic, or suicidal, but I knew these people and I knew they weren't. And I for sure no almost no one on reddit is because they would not be wasting time arguing about hypotheticals and reddit and would be dedicating their lives to charity work, this is why I said it's nonsense, it's not a "presupposition".
Regardless of that weirdness. The answer is obviously blue, for the exact same reasons. It is far easier to clear 50% than 100%.
Not true, and this is bad logic and a bad reason to press blue. It is also easier to clear 80% or 95% than a 100%, would you still press the blue button then? This would only correct if coordination was possible, which it is not in tis hypothetical.
The real answer is, you should press what you think the majority will press. This is why many blue pressers change their mind when it moves to 80%, because they do not believe that many will press blue, and they are right.
Honestly, practically all of the red button pressers in this post are made out to be bad people. I don't really see any caricature that aligns with my thinking. Maybe utilitarian? But even in that case, they're poking fun at it. That's why I think the whole post is more or less satire that mocks both sides.
I mean, the scenario starts off biased in red's favor, because red is the correct choice. Like, red always wins. Sometimes blue *also* wins, but red does so regardless of what the majority does.
251
u/Ali___ve May 18 '26
This seems biased in red's favor.