Daniel McCumber

Maybe they should cut back on the pumpkin spice lattes 🤷‍♂️

@DAKKADAKKA1 Bro doesn’t know about statistics 😭

Listen buddy. The vast majority of humanity is 70IQ. Literally unconscious.

The only PHM sequel I would accept is a miniseries that’s just a slice of life comedy set on erid. Erid Elementary

@FDSportsbook 100 to make contact, yes 100 to put the ball in play, maybe 100 to hit a home run?!?!??!? No thanks

Would you rather... A. Be given $50,000 right now B. Have 100 pitches to hit a HR off of Paul Skenes for $100 million

@bennotshapiro @sotruegrant @qQueueCue @burnthalies Please point out the words “instant” and “no communication”

@daniel_mccumber @sotruegrant @qQueueCue @burnthalies The prompt literally said instant, no communication, everyone who can understand the question (linguistically) votes...it's really fucking stupid for you to be this intentionally dense, then use that density to excuse yourself from the immorality of your own choices.

:^)

@cat_pretentious @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies No that’s not my stance at all. There is a contradiction between what is possible, and what the question says must be done. Which means it’s impossible. You say that an absurdist interpretation must be taken, I say you’re missing the point. The question isn’t about saving babies.

@daniel_mccumber @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies Because it says "has to". I am not changing anything from the original question. You're the one piling on what ifs and how's and whataboutisms. This I think is why the discourse overall talks past each other in many scenarios.

@cat_pretentious @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies You’re still changing the question to suit how you feel. Why does it change in the direction that forces a vote from everyone somehow? Why not one where incapable voters aren’t involved? Both technically don’t fit with the original question. Which shows why this isn’t the point

@daniel_mccumber @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies I see it and I have to accept the absurdism if I am to engage with the question faithfully. Otherwise I am changing the question to suit how I feel. I accept the absurdism to understand that everyone presses a button. I do not know how it is done, only that it is done, then vote.

@cat_pretentious @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies 😐

@daniel_mccumber @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies The question doesn't explain how, you have to accept absurdism in how a vote is counted. That's why I picked blue because I read everyone as everyone. I cannot knowingly let kids die because they like the sky. Abstainers also die in how red is written "Only those that chose red".

@cat_pretentious @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies This is a choice between two buttons. And you’re completely right, it is a button push. And a subsection of “everyone” is a group of people that can’t press buttons. But the question says “everyone in the world has to take a private vote”. Do you see the contradiction?

@daniel_mccumber @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies This isn't a choice, it's a button push. Somehow it happens. I didn't make the vote machine, but in this question it exists and it takes its vote from you by a button push in whatever way it needs to.

@cat_pretentious @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies The question says “everyone votes”. If someone has their choice picked by chance that is not voting. Therefore not everyone can vote.

@cat_pretentious @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies Bro retconned his own question 😭 It’s simply not possible for everyone to vote. What if someone was in a coma, or paralyzed from ALS? Also the babies. Having them pick randomly undermines the true spirit of the dilemma. It’s impractical to suggest absolutely everyone votes.

@Daniel86Cycles The blue voters role is that of the ones getting in a giant human eating blender of their own free will.

@daniel_mccumber It's not wording it's about what people's factual role in the problem is.

Okay: In this case, the red button is simply replaced with "Don't do that". This is NOT what the original question said. The original question required the active participation of the red button pushers. The equivalent scenario would have the red team **turning on the blender**.

The red and blue buttons is actually about how keeping the family unit strong keeps the world strong.

@cat_pretentious @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies Who forced anyone to press blue?

@daniel_mccumber @qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies The kids are literally forced into the burning building in the original scenario. That is why a lot of people who pressed blue, pressed blue.

People saying “what if the kids vote blue” “the question says everyone” are missing the point. It’s not possible for everyone to vote. People in comas? Infant babies? Severe ALS? The question is about trust and coordination, not demographic change. Just press red and don’t die.

@qQueueCue @sotruegrant @burnthalies It’s really not the point of the question.

@daniel_mccumber @sotruegrant @burnthalies If this was a real question with real stakes, how would people react? We cant know that. But what we DO know, is the question says EVERYONE. So therefore the consequences of the question would effect EVERYONE. You shift the goalposts by pretending that everyone excludes children

@qQueueCue @cat_pretentious @sotruegrant @burnthalies We teach kids not to run into burning buildings. Teach them not to press the blue button. You seem to think kids are forced into the burning building. Just press red and move on with your day. The children thing isn’t even the point of the question.

@daniel_mccumber @cat_pretentious @sotruegrant @burnthalies Id jump in the blender to try and get children out of it. "Fire fighters shouldn't run into a burning building to get kids out of it. If they run in, both the fire fighter and the child could die, if they don't then at least we know for sure the fire fighter will survive"

@cat_pretentious @sotruegrant @qQueueCue @burnthalies Pick red. Tell everyone you know to pick red. It’s the simple choice. Blue voters are only a risk to themselves. The only people they can save by majority vote is themselves. All red voters are always safe no matter what.

@daniel_mccumber @sotruegrant @qQueueCue @burnthalies Dooming myself to what? The most important decision humanity has ever been presented with and choosing to be counted among those that would choose save us all? Yes. I might die. Anything worth striving for has risk. I'd risk keeping us all together than charging the death ray.

@CAPtheLEGEND @Daniel86Cycles No. There should be difference in living as a red pusher or a blue pusher when reframing the question.

Here's a red-blue button reframe: Your government has been captured by psychopaths and is enforcing a join-us-or-die mass tyrannical loyalty test and suppression psyop. You can either rebel against them, or submit to their power. If you refuse to resist, and join them in the new tyrannical system, you'll watch them kill anyone who rebels, but you'll be safe and they'll leave you alone. Quality of life will tank and the idealists will all be dead, but you'll live on. If you rebel, and enough other people rebel, you will crush the oppressors and gain freedom for everyone. But if too few people rebel you'll all be slaughtered. Which do you choose? Risk death for freedom or stay alive and watch the rebels risk their lives at hazard of death?