Raymond Sestmann

@TimRunsHisMouth @robreiner Scratch a progressive and you'll find a totalitarian yearning to come to the surface

@ReasonUnchains @cinnamontoastk Similar I'm thinking of/referring to the people most invested in justifying their choice The ones calling people names, or worse, calling for punishments

@Chimptistic @cinnamontoastk Personally, I’m more in the middle Some reds are evil. And some blues are stupid lol But most are neither. At least in my opinion

This red button/blue button discourse is wild. 100% red saves everyone no consequence 51% of blue saves everyone no consequence 51% red kills all of blue but they frame it like its blues fault they had to kill them even though red is the only choice that causes anyone to die.

@Cary_Bleasdale @OGalperen_ @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb It implicitly might have, but to explicitly include that, it's missing a great many words

@Chimptistic @OGalperen_ @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb It explicitly did, and the author confirmed it

Some of you seem very confused The question is not, and has never been "Would you sacrifice to save others" MANY people, myself included, who have ALREADY proven they would pick red The question is "Would you put yourself in a situation in which others will be forced to save you"

@Cary_Bleasdale @OGalperen_ @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb Canadian Healthcare doesn't

@OGalperen_ @Chimptistic @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb You don't think we should save suicidal people?

@OGalperen_ @Cary_Bleasdale @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb Yes, that is the point People are acting like the original question included the babies, when it clearly didn't

@Chimptistic @Cary_Bleasdale @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb Original question is, don't do anything or save suicidal people and when you include babies it turns into kill babies or save babies. Then it is not a dilemma anymore it is just a fucking random ass question not even worth thinking about it.

@Cary_Bleasdale @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb That's not no risk I know there a people in a high trust environment that would pick Red, even knowing that there are mental deficients and other's that can't make a rational decision that need saving Because in a world wide scenario, I don't see enough people picking blue

@Chimptistic @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb Yeah man, I know you'd be willing to do it if there was no risk whatsoever, it's just you aren't willing to take a risk to help people. You would much rather make sure that whatever happens, you are safe. Like if the ship was sinking you'd want to be on the lifeboats first

@ReasonUnchains @cinnamontoastk And that maps to the button debate, at least in the initial assumptions Blue button people think the reds are evil Reds think the blues are stupid

@Chimptistic @cinnamontoastk Okay?

@RickyCleybourne @6Hell6Fire6Joe6 How high must the stakes be to get 51% to roll the dice, so to speak?

@6Hell6Fire6Joe6 This isn’t a take, this is just another knock off scenario. $5 is not comparable to a life whatsoever. My take is that you are slow as shit

Here's my genuine take on the Button Problem: You and a random selection of people from around the world are participating in a study. You are placed in a room with two buttons: If more than half of participants press button A, everyone gets $5, but if less than half of participants press button A, only the people who pressed button B get $5. You do not know how many participants there are, where they are from, nor may you see their choices or communicate with them before casting your vote. Which button do you press?

@ReasonUnchains @cinnamontoastk There is an old saw in US politics Republicans think Democrats are stupid Democrats think Republicans are evil By their actions, they're most often talking about themselves

Since every single person on earth is included in this hypothetical, there will be tens of millions of people like infants and toddlers and coma patients or people without physical or mental disabilities who are literally incapable of pushing either button This is not simply a reading comprehension issue

@JustSumACDude @OGalperen_ @Cary_Bleasdale @WatcherontheWeb We're making the same point Only if one injects additional factors of reward or jeopardy does Blue become persuasive to some of the people that would pick Red in the original thought experiment

@Chimptistic @OGalperen_ @Cary_Bleasdale @WatcherontheWeb Red: absolutely zero risk, opt out of the scenario and live Blue: take a risk that 50% +1 of the ENTIRE human population will choose to risk their lives for you just because. The choice you make is taking place in a vacuum with no outside influence. Don’t be the retard

@JustSumACDude @Cary_Bleasdale @WatcherontheWeb The Blue assumption that of course people will pick blue, it might save event one life, is a very High Trust Society position Most of the world is not High Trust If you said the sample size was: My church My office My local YMCA It might sway my opinion But the world....

@Cary_Bleasdale @WatcherontheWeb @Chimptistic You people are making a decision assuming it’s even remotely likely that 50% +1 of the population will choose anything but self preservation. It’s retarded. When you choose to take a risk when the other option was literally zero risk. Then it’s all on you bud

@OGalperen_ @Cary_Bleasdale @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb Yes, if the question was: Pick Red to save your life Pick Blue to save babies, coma patients, mentally handicapped and progressives, BUT if less than 51% pick blue you die too That is more likely to get people to go from blue to red

@Cary_Bleasdale @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb @Chimptistic Blue voters included babies after they realized how retarded they sound. And if we do that, question doesn't make sense anymore. It doesn't matter what you choose. Babies and mentally handicapped people could all press red and kill blue voters. There is no logic after that point.

@Cary_Bleasdale @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb Or that you put your life at risk for no reason and expect other's to bail you out Not admirable either

@Chimptistic @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb Yes, it means that you choose your own life above helping other people. That's fine. It's just not morally admirable

@ClimateWarrior7 It's already been captured and dissected by the US and NATO allies

Unsettling reports are coming in that the Russians have developed a fighter jet that can travel at mach 5, even mach 6, and has a thought-guided, thought-controlled arsenal. If true, it will change the structure of our world.

@devintoshea On my belt or in my pack 99 days out of 100

no knife guy wants to admit that a pair of scissors is a way more useful daily carry. why are there no scissors guys

@LibertyCappy Burn Notice

What could go wrong? 🤣

@Haunted_Backlog @SandyofCthulhu King vs Lovecraft 99% of King's stories are longer than Lovecraft's But Lovecraft's stories are better than 99% of King's

@SandyofCthulhu The Wheel of Time is a good example of the "epic" in "epic fantasy" really meaning "padded and repetitive."

A friend suggested The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan. I read a little bit, then whined to him, "I read 100 pages and nothing happened." He said, "Give it another 200 pages." Anyway I never read another word. Maybe it was awesome. But I don't want to earn the right to enjoy a book. this rule particularly applies to games. An early game might have a restricted field of choice, but those choices need to exist. If you turn on Age of Empires, you start with a town center, three villagers, and some resources. What should you do? Find sheep? Hunt deer? Lure boars? find berries? Build a house? You have many choices. At the start of my board game Cthulhu Wars you have 6 cultists and a gate. Almost everyone starts the game by moving a cultist and building a gate. But where do you move that cultist? What's your third move? Summon a monster? Move a second cultist? Go after a spellbook? Games are about interesting decisions that matter.

@Cary_Bleasdale @JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb This assumes millions pick blue when given a no reason scenario Picking Red means that you are not willing to risk your life for people that knowingly put their lives at risk for no reason OR perhaps want to commit suicide

@JustSumACDude @WatcherontheWeb @Chimptistic No, the main question is *you have to press a button* There's an implicit third choice in this: "do nothing". That's the whole point- inevitably, SOMEONE will pick blue. For whatever reason. Red is still choosing millions of deaths, it's just not doing anything about it

@NotWill42 @ingelramdecoucy @f_gantry What does learn more link say? I've seen that when the OP hides replies

@ingelramdecoucy @f_gantry What’s going on here?

I really couldn’t care less about this guy. You’re using your dying days to go on a podcast tour imparting faux wisdom? Spend some time with your kids Erika Sasse. You voted to hurt people experiencing your exact pain so spare me.

@Infi_Gabe95 @Cary_Bleasdale @WatcherontheWeb Not the same, however You've introduced a reason for people to risk their lives, and a person to save exists outside of the selecting pool that was imperilled prior to the decision point

@Cary_Bleasdale @WatcherontheWeb I have a better example, you see a flipped car with some people trying to lift it, you don't know who they are or why they are lifting the car. If not enough people help lift the car, it will fall and crush everybody trying to lift it. Will you help or not.