Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎

40.1K posts

Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎 banner
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎

Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎

@Pablonorm

Not fun at parties. Not good with people. Social Democracy. Converse lots in others' replies. Shitposter. Follow at your peril.

Montreal 가입일 Kasım 2014
1.4K 팔로잉365 팔로워
Kuuhaku ☭
Kuuhaku ☭@Kuuhaku3993·
I'd press the blue button. Not cause I'm confident I'll survive, but because I wouldn't wanna live in a world made of exclusively red button pressers, anyway
English
10
1
121
1.6K
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
@bloodstreamrunz @chuvakk Your bias makes you want to believe it wouldn't be higher than that and yet it's still horrifying that you'd still be willing to sacrifice up to 15% of the population to justify ensuring your survival.
English
1
0
0
13
catarina.
catarina.@bloodstreamrunz·
@chuvakk I have something called "common sense"
English
4
0
0
46
catarina.
catarina.@bloodstreamrunz·
there is absolutely no chance that blue would get more than 15% in a real scenario, the odds of it winning 50%+1 of the vote are ridiculously minuscule. voting blue isn't even a gamble, it's plain suicide, blue is a death cult of suicidal idiots
Sam || Crafting Vegeto@CraftingVegeto

Okay, so after thinking about this red blue button dilemma for hours, here is where I landed lol At first glance, the correct pragmatic answer is obviously red. You survive no matter what. That part is still 100 percent true. Red is the logical self preservation move. You do not die no matter what the others do. But once you think deeper, you realize that blue actually has a strong moral and collective argument. Blue only needs "just" over 50 percent to save literally everyone, while red basically needs 100 percent for no one to die. So blue is the gamble that gives humanity the best shot at universal survival with the lowest bar. At the same time, tons of people are emotional as hell, not logical or pragmatic, and sadly a lot are straight up virtue signaling kings. That means there is a real chance we end up in that dangerous 40 to 49 percent blue zone where billions die and society collapses anyway. Even the survivors probably would not survive long after that. Good job everyone. So yeah, red is the logical self preservation move, and blue is the more morally correct gamble to try and save everyone. Both sides have a solid point. Having that said... Everyone on Twitter furiously shitting on the other side is an idiot. Blues calling reds selfish monsters are idiots. Reds who cannot even see the collective blue argument are idiots too. But here is the most important part imho. All of this is bullshit. This is just a Twitter thought experiment where everything is easy and fake. If this was real life, an actual button in front of you, and pressing the wrong one means you actually die, everything changes. Heart rate at 180, adrenaline spiking, shitting your pants. I firmly believe there is near 0 percent chance blue gets over 50 percent in a real scenario, which I am not saying is a good thing. All the virtue signaling idiots on the internet would secretly press red in a heartbeat. Sure, some actual idealists who care about the collective more than pure survival would still press blue, and sadly they would die. In a real terrifying dystopian situation like that, red is the only solution, and it sucks.

English
4
0
13
560
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎 리트윗함
John Adams
John Adams@EUhobgoblin·
@Rationalbot Conservatives continue to struggle to differentiate between virtue signalling and virtue
English
2
1
8
150
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
@mattyglesias If a person could equally get an explosive that close (would explosives harder to get there than the guns were?), would you still say it worked?
English
0
0
0
1.3K
Matthew Yglesias
Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesias·
Catching up but it seems like the whole area where POTUS and other officials were was in fact secure, and the shooter was stopped well outside the security perimeter in the publicly open area of the hotel and basically everyone did their jobs well and the system worked.
English
21
58
1.1K
56.8K
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
@lymanstoneky It isn't the same scenario. Many people will push the blue button. Almost nobody will jump. The scenario is fundamentally changed. You add a powerful incentive to push red. If you add to the button situation that if you die, you die in some horrible fashion, it changes things.
English
0
0
1
24
Ariel
Ariel@redtachyon·
I think the strongest argument for blue button is that if even like 30% or 40% press blue (but <50%), that's basically an apocalypse scenario, total societal collapse and you'll probably die soon anyways. But imo this goes beyond the main hypothetical?
English
93
0
129
13.8K
Captain Ⓐncapistan
Captain Ⓐncapistan@CptAncapistan·
These are the two best reframings of the button question I’ve seen. They’re both essentially the same concept, but one makes blue the easy choice and the other makes red the easy choice. Sorry, I just find this thought experiment fascinating.
Captain Ⓐncapistan tweet mediaCaptain Ⓐncapistan tweet media
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

English
79
13
140
8.1K
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
@Phantom_TheGame You don't want this idea spread in advance. That will change the outcome. But when you get to the point of actually voting, it won't change the outcome. The idea is influential. The act isn't.
English
1
0
10
1.2K
Fox News
Fox News@FoxNews·
JUST IN: President Trump reacts to WH Correspondents' Dinner shooting, posting: "This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House. It cannot be built fast enough!"
Fox News tweet media
English
456
357
1.5K
96.9K
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
The fact that this poll has been done several times and blue keeps winning should influence peoples' choices. Reds should take it into account, but I suspect whatever their outward justification, their motivations are mostly just self-preservation and so it won't.
English
0
0
0
8
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
The real world result would be different. Many blues would choose red. Some reds would go blue. Not sure red would win. There'd certainly be a non-zero, potentially large, group of blues. Avoiding a world of people that chose red knowing that is real motivation to go blue.
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎 tweet media
English
1
0
0
9
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
@AbeLopezAuthor "Rational people know intrinsically that everyone should press red, it eliminates any question of anyone dying" Choose red to save yourself. Fine. That everyone would pick red is an impossibility. It is not available as justification.
English
0
0
0
21
Abe Lopez, Author
Abe Lopez, Author@AbeLopezAuthor·
Rational people know intrinsically that everyone should press red, it eliminates any question of anyone dying Irrational (emotionally-driven) people will be compelled to press blue because “it’s the right thing to do” And the more you try to convince them otherwise the more they’ll dig in
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

English
227
16
365
18.3K
Coren ✒🎨
Coren ✒🎨@CorenLaVolpe·
IF your goal is for no one to die (note: this is NOT everyone's goal), then it's just a matter of statistical probabilities. It's far more likely for 51% to pick blue than it is for 100% to pick red, but both scenarios have the end result of no one dying. So, to them, they're picking the better odds, I suppose.
English
70
9
265
8.9K
Emo Support Cobra Chicken🌎
@NCyotee Just make up a definition of high trust society that includes such classic paradises as the wild wild west and dystopian wastelands.
English
1
0
0
200