@TedtheProphet @ReviewsPossum It's wrong to think that family in general sucks because your family specifically did
English
Lousy_Writer
68 posts
All leftism stems from hatred of their own families. The ideology is just window dressing.
philosophy memes 🔗@philosophymeme0
English
@frankaskaralius @Gert_Woellmann Wenn ich mir Kommentare von Böhmi oder Hotz anschaue, wollen die das schon jetzt
Deutsch
@Gert_Woellmann Am Ende werden sie jene töten wollen, die sie hassen.
Deutsch
Es reicht dieser irren Blase nicht, Accounts zu blocken, die sie für [setze linken Kampfbegriff] halten. Sie blocken und erstellen Listen auch mit Leuten, die
- diesen folgen
- mit diesen – egal wie – interagieren
- Leuten folgen, die diesen Folgen
- uvm.
Da trifft es halt auch mal einen Spiegel-Journalisten. Eigentlich müssten alle vom Spiegel auf die Liste.
BlockSky
Benedikt Brechtken@ben_brechtken
Gestern hat ein Spiegel-Journalist mit mir auf BlueSky interagiert. Laut linken Listenherstellern hat er sich damit zum "Steigbügelhalter des Faschismus" gemacht und verdient eine entsprechende Behandlung. Das ist kein soziales Medium, das ist eine offene Psychiatrie.
Deutsch
@Gnostic_Shinobi @reddit_lies @esjesjesj And had terrible life and ultimately committed suicide around the age of 40
English
@reddit_lies @esjesjesj Actually it has happened at least once. In 1967, after Bruce Reimer suffered a botched circumcision, his desperate family agreed to a radical treatment.
Dr John Money had an idea and Bruce was the ideal test subject so at 17 months old Bruce became Brenda.
bbc.com/news/health-11…
English
Fun fact literally no 5 year old has ever gotten gender surgery
War Correspondent@warDaniel47
🚨 JAMES WOODS JUST SAID IT PERFECTLY: "If you're still a Democrat and you support mutilating 5-year-olds because they like the color pink, you're just a MONSTER." "I'm done with Democrats. If you're still a Democrat now, you're NUTS!" 💯🔥
English
@unblogd Trotzdem böse ratioed - ein Verhältnis von unter 4:3 ist nix, womit man hausieren kann
Deutsch
@maxmannhart Ihr zerstört denen die Existenzgrundlage, meinen die? youtu.be/gPQFF0oqsto?is…
YouTube
Deutsch
Die Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung verklagt uns, weil unsere kritische Berichterstattung ihre „wirtschaftliche Existenzgrundlage“ zerstören würde.
Ich nehme das ab sofort als Arbeitsnachweis für alle unsere Abonnenten und Unterstützer.
apollo-news.net/wirtschaftlich…
Deutsch
@zachayres @Makena_Jr @YourBudTevin The question was "what would you do if you knew both are impossible?"
(Besides: the original poll was a non-binding declaration of intent with zero negative repercussions; and was taken by a group that isn't representative for 8b humans - i.e. it's completely meaningless.)
English
@LousyWriter01 @Makena_Jr @YourBudTevin 100% red is impossible. 51% blue is completely possible, seen as how blue actually won in the original post.
English
I’ve seen like 800 tweets about this but my simple way of thinking is:
If you choose blue, you don’t want anyone to die. It is impossible for anyone to die if you press blue.
If you choose red, you are afraid of others choosing red. The only way anyone dies at all is if you choose red.
When I read this, I actually don’t think about myself. I think about hurting the least amount of people. So I pick blue.
MrBeast@MrBeast
Everyone on earth takes 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? BE HONEST.
English
@ActualArgonaut @YourBudTevin Let's just say I like your "let's turn a philosophical question into an action movie"-idea more if it was reality, but it makes a less interesting discussion ;)
English
@LousyWriter01 @YourBudTevin Teleporting is not stipulated in the rules, but I don't deny they are powerful. I would at least be a hindrance in their plans whereas most seem to be happy slaves if they can seem smart in having "won" the game.
English
@jonathanbylos @DeeWaynee94 @YourBudTevin Ah okay, my mistake.
Yeah, it's true that people who can't understand have a 50% of change of dying.
But the issue is: if one assumes that 50%+ for blue is out of reach (I do), you're helping nobody by adding your body to the pile. Because then you get dead babies *and* orphans.
English
sorry, wasn't clear. I meant, for random unconventional votes (toddlers, dependents etc.), there's say a ~50% chance they're blue. More robustly: you can't rule out the possibility they're NOT blue. So that's the rational basis for considering blue, if you have dependents to try guarantee their safety, and one gambles on it.
Regarding the edges on the margin, I argue there is a fringe selfish minority (say 0.1-1%) that is only interested in survival, but sees red as highly likely, if not guaranteed, to also cause their doom. They may vote blue on principle, knowing that blue might be large enough already, but don't see the upside of trying to free-ride on blue (like most reds are already doing).
English
@jonathanbylos @DeeWaynee94 @YourBudTevin The problem with your reasoning is that you assume the odds are 50:50 because blue just needs 50% to win. But in a "live or die"-scenario, the average person would be more likely to choose survival - and even the tiniest edge for red (like 0.1%) would result in 100% red victory.
English
How about one button that says: press this and you vote for a 50-50 chance that hundreds of millions of children die. Press this other and you gamble to get above 50% and save everyone
Blue aligns protective instincts, group interest, and even some self interest
Some selfish voters might feel blue loss at that scale is effectively their doom too. Also, maybe they may be psychologically influenced to vote blue in this kind of rationale. No one can say for sure, it's all personal preferences and perspectives
But a naive red vote just assumes every other selfish party thinks like them, and so they assume they would all defect red because red is "risk free" (incorrect assumption to assume all others would reason this way)
English
@jonathanbylos @DeeWaynee94 @YourBudTevin Step by step:
1. Picking "you survive" over "you might die" is rational.
2. Blinding out the consequences of a red "victory" (even just 10% of blue votes would be the biggest catastrophe in history) is not.
3. But neither is believing that a blue victory is a realistic scenario.
English
@LousyWriter01 @DeeWaynee94 @YourBudTevin "Red voters don't think that far", so red is irrational then?
x.com/i/status/20512…
Jonathan ⚡@jonathanbylos
This button drama is interesting because it went viral apparently because "blues are irrational, reds are rational" Reds mostly missed that there are innocent votes ("everyone on earth"), so there is blue rationale to start voting blue with game theory to save innocents. Blue is a large base, and some selfish voters now have an incentive to not collapse their world for no reason, since blue is stronger than a naive red assumed. Then this reinforces parents to vote blue, game theory cycle repeats for a blue win IF EVERYONE is rational and assumes 2nd order effects for all personal preferences/perspectives. Naive Reds after I show them the game theory cycle: "no one is going to reason like that", oh really, so red is then not rational? Blue was more rational, and red is more irrational, than you expected. That's my main takeaway from this.
English
@ActualArgonaut @YourBudTevin If this vote was real, you would be dealing with someone who can simultaneously teleport every single human in their own separate room you can only leave when pushing a button.
English
@LousyWriter01 @YourBudTevin If this vote was real, it would have the potential to wipe out nearly half of the population of earth, so of course it matters who is doing it and why.
English
@ActualArgonaut @YourBudTevin It's about how people would react to this conundrum. Whether it's aliens, an AI, some deity or whatever else that is responsible for that (and whether you can actually fight it or not) doesn't really matter.
Though wanting a third option is very understandable.
English
@LousyWriter01 @YourBudTevin Since you imply you know, how about you tell me?
English
@Seirei_no_Hai @YourBudTevin It's funny how smug and self-righteous those who pick blue can be. (Not that plenty of reds are better.)
You *are* aware that Pride is considered the worst of the seven sins?
English
@LousyWriter01 @YourBudTevin If God made a test like that. He's obviously waiting for Humanity to pick blue because it means Jesus's teachings managed to get through to them.
To pick Red makes you a leech.
English
@two_twenty_four @Gigabear_X @YourBudTevin Thankfully it's just a thought experiment, so this saves you a lot of disappointment *and* your life.
English
@LousyWriter01 @Gigabear_X @YourBudTevin "Let me invent quickly some untrue racist tropes with no connection whatsoever to the subject at hand to prove that in my alternate universe you're wrong"
Sure buddy, whatever 🙄
English
@Seirei_no_Hai @YourBudTevin Jesus had a special button where he saved everyone at the cost of his own life, you don't.
English
English
@EWaveMacro @CamOW_ @YourBudTevin In more closed tests of this thought experiment, 80+% of women chose blue.
How do you rebuild if vast majority of women die out?
English
@CMcgoobs @YourBudTevin Except he's wrong.
Nobody dies if *enough* people push blue, and this is anything but guaranteed. Quite the opposite, actually.
English
@YourBudTevin Thank you! I hard agree with this stance/mindset and you’ve put it clearest I’ve seen here.
English
@YourBudTevin "it is impossible for anyone to die if you pick blue."
You have such a saviour complex. You're assuming that your vote is the one that gets blue over the 50% threshold, when, in reality, your vote is just one in 8 billion. There's a better than 50% chance you pick blue and die.
English
@ActualArgonaut @YourBudTevin Because this is not what the thought experiment is about.
English
@YourBudTevin Why do few even question which kind of authority is forcing this sadistic vote on us and why?
English
@Wentle4 @Master17Simp @DuskLordXXX @YourBudTevin In that scenario blue would likely win:
- Western students are the worst demographic for this
- there is not enough on the line
- this would never fly if a professor did it
- there's the risk that the professor is just tricking you and actually made this a test of your character
English
@Master17Simp @DuskLordXXX @YourBudTevin I want a professor to do this with a final and change the question to be if 50% or more push blue then everyone passes the final but if 50% or more push red then only blue will fail the final.
English