OBX_Pirate

@RealDonKeith @RedPilled1788 Should be instant disqualification from office for not understanding the most basic duties of the three branches of our government. Enforcement is literally in the executive branches job description. Ffs, its a question on our citizenship test!!!

🚨I hate to keep harping on those low IQ’s but every time I try to ignore them a genius like this comes along.🤣 A Democrat congressional candidate, Ala Stanford, who proudly supports abolishing ICE gets asked a basic question about her position… and completely freezes. She literally asks to pause the interview because she has zero clue why she believes it. This is who they’re running for Congress.

@Dolotatio @dannycantalk Your answer can't be part of the predictive dataset, as it was previously stipulated time travel was not involved.

@dannycantalk You're right, if my answer here is part of the data set the predictor uses to make its prediction it would definitely make sense to do that.

We're done rehashing the button question. Time to rehash Newcomb's Paradox. Are you a one-boxer or a two-boxer?

@CraftingVegeto Agree with everything you wrote except for the last three words.

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.

@NicholasDClay @BuckTurgids0n @lporiginalg Try again, sir.

@BuckTurgids0n @lporiginalg If you are a god fearing christian man, you choose blue. If you are a godless degenerate, you choose red. It really is that simple

You have to admit this is a hilarious tweet. Blue has won and everyone lives but all the red pressers are coping about their high IQs or whatever while having to love the rest of their lives knowing they would cowardly condemn their fellow man to death to save their own skin.

@BuckTurgids0n @WhigBiskey @lporiginalg It's illustrative of today's political landscape as well. Especially the artificial removal of potential death consequence for the suicidal empathic folks' choice.

Again, in the hypothetical world where this vote takes place, this is exactly the type of problem which derails the argument that the requisite high-trust society exists to secure the blue vote majority. There are no circumstances I can fathom where a civilization would willingly subject their most innocent, vulnerable members to such a choice. Why? Because the problem is created PURELY as a dilemma which requires consideration of the outcomes/consequences to inform the individual's free choice. There can be no "free choice" when the individual lacks the ability to fathom the results of their actions. We do not let 1YOs play with firearms, knives, gasoline, or... woodchippers. The premise of allowing them to vote, unsupervised, simply does not survive any reasonable assessment of the situation, and if you insist that 1YOs MUST vote, then you've proven the evil of the society which constructed the dilemma, and destroyed the trust required to foster a reasonable belief that achieving the blue majority is possible. And this is exactly why I posted in the first place. You cannot pose the question, then explain that blue victory is morally superior because the underlying premise of the vote is inherently evil.

Blue team is trying to save blue team from the problem blue team created for blue team by doing the only thing that creates the problem for blue team.

@Phantom_TheGame @sjmawhinney If the government is campaigning for something, I am most assuredly choosing the opposite thing, because my choice has a far higher statistical probability of providing a better outcome for both myself and my loved ones.

Why not campaign for blue, to make sure everyone lives? There is no chance everyone picks red, it's not happening. Just the kids alone will probably bring the percentage to at least 10%, even with campaigning. Do you honestly think that our governments would campaign for red, which will ensure that *some* people will die, rather than blue, which ensures everyone lives and we can move on as usual, and only requires 50% votes?

There is a 0% chance everyone will pick red. Therefore, there is a 0% chance that people WON'T pick blue knowing this, because they don't want people to die. And knowing this, even more people would press blue to save those people. Picking red might seem logical at first, because you'll always live, but think for a second. Realistically, around 50% of people will pick blue. What will happen to society if half the population dies? Additionally, the ones picking blue are probably the most altruistic people. People who would put themselves in danger to save others. These are your doctors, firemen, policemen, teachers, military, nurses etc. If less than 50% of humanity picks blue, all of these people will die. If you pick red, and all the blue pressers die, you have not ensured your own safety. The world you'll live in will be in complete chaos. A world where all remaining humans are the most selfish and have the least amount of empathy. I'd guess a huge percentage of the remaining population would die in the next few years. Picking red is the slow, painful death option. Picking blue is - you might die, but at least it will be quick and painless compared to the ones who picked red. Preferably though, blue is the "save everyone and prevent society from collapsing" option.

@quantum_geoff Blue manufactures the conundrum to begin with. No blue pushers, no problem. Blue pushers are literally calling the creation of a hostage situation to enforce their worldview the morally superior option.

@quantum_geoff PS. I would be actively praying that the person responsible for my outcome would also choose red. Because I am a logical creature and want to live, no matter how many poor choices my fellow humans may choose to make.

@quantum_geoff In your scenario the moral impetus is even stronger for red. Your designated person would survive regardless of the size of the idiot corps of suicidal empaths choosing blue. If I am responsible for saving one random person, my moral imperative attaches to that specific person

For those claiming that voting red isn’t a symptom of selfishness, imagine a variant of this where your vote doesn’t determine your own life, but the life of a random person assigned to you...

@RoyCalbeck You are trying to impute a moral cosequence to a choice to which the problem specifically states there is no such consequence. Assigning shared responsibility for a personal choice when zero choice in participation is allowed is the logical fallacy of the blue argument.

Just to clarify for people who seem to be upset about my "pushing Blue" AND being willing to argue the point instead of accepting Red as The Given Wisdom: Pushing Blue is a vote not to kill anyone. Pushing Red is a vote to kill anyone who doesn't press Red. The entire argument for pressing Red, to date has been "but what if I press Blue and most people press Red? It's only self-preservation". Self-preservation alone is no justification, unless it's a GIVEN that you will die by pressing Blue. There is no "given" in the thought experiment on display, but proponents for pushing Red act like there is. Instead, to conclude that Red is the right and proper decision, one has to believe that there is a realistic chance that at least half of humanity is psychotic enough to kill everyone else just to save themselves. Let us apply that to a real-world situation: if you are drafted into military service, and there is a 100% chance you can escape and never be caught IF you murder the guy who shows up at your door to serve your papers, do you murder them merely because there is a "non-zero chance" you might die in the war you've been drafted into? Pressing Blue is the only moral choice. Pressing Red would have me trying to explain before God that I thought it was justified to vote in favor of mass-murder on the SLIGHTEST of possibilities that I would be murdered if I didn't. If you REALLY think this is what you want to terminate your relationship with me over, as one person has already done, there is the door, and I will thank you for dragging your thin skin after you as you depart.

Marked 🏳Safe 🏳 from blue buttons, blenders, and any other vain attempt to guilt me into sacrificing myself for some illdefined nebulous "greater good"

@Photo_Mayor @NoahTiceOhrr @xman_77550 @GravenJesh78420 @unexpectedmuzic Government OF THE PEOPLE? That government? There's your answer; its still our collective money, and We The People who contributed get a say in how it is spent. Stop being intentionally obtuse for clicks.

@NoahTiceOhrr @xman_77550 @GravenJesh78420 @unexpectedmuzic How is it yours after you give it to the government?

Why do so many people feel the need to police what poor people eat?

@Photo_Mayor Because they are spending MY MONEY. If they want choices, let them spend THEIR MONEY. I will say nothing about that, I promise.

@recmo @waitbutwhy Me. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

@waitbutwhy Who wants to live in a world populated only by red button pressers?

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?

@ElkinsCattleCo Ribeye, hands down.

X family: We’re GIVING AWAY a full beef box this weekend!!! USDA prime, grass-fed & finished, dry-aged beef— raised right here in Lampasas, Texas What’s included: – 2 ribeyes – 2 flat irons – 8 wagyu burger patties – 2 lb ground beef – king sized picanha – cross cut bone-in short ribs We’ll ship it straight to your door!! to enter: • follow @ElkinsCattleCo • repost this • comment your all-time favorite beef cut must be in the U.S. (AK/HI not included) Winner announced monday 04/27 at noon CT ships out Tuesday 04/28 1 winner will be announced + DM’d from this account only. Good luck! 🙏🥩🇺🇸

How to lose a trade negotiation Step 1: travel to minor, inconsequential markets for a year. Fail to reverse the decade of Liberal policies making Canada the second poorest US state after Mississippi. Step 2: play up a performative “middle power resistance” schtick and mis-cite Vaclev Havel - whose antagonism to political cynicism would hate this ‘elbows up’ embarrassment. Step 3: run out of time and strategic options while Mexico creates a bilateral alternative to CUSMA. In 1812, our generals weren’t playing with figurines their New York friends gave them and talking about previous battles to prepare the nation for an anticipated failure from their own lack of preparation and focus. Canada has a generational opportunity to create the largest and most consequential free trade zone with the largest economy in the world. This video is a national embarrassment.

@theblessedsalt @StuffForSisters The fact that you needed to have confirmation that mobs are insane is all the proof I need of your inability to perform basic logic.

@StuffForSisters The fact that your Swiftian bargain got (so far) 100% support is all the affirmation I need that the mob is insane.

This post is an excellent litmus test for understanding of just war theory. Despite the fact that I can see how effective this would be, I must oppose it because the damage it would do to my enemy (who bashes in my mailbox) would far outweigh the good of saving my mailbox. Its disproportionality is opposed by our duty in charity (and even justice) to watch out even for the good of our enemies. (Yes, by the way, I have had my mailbox bashed in by random vandals.)

Democracy is when 51% vote to strip away political representation from the 49%, keeping the latter in a perpetual state of servitude to the former with no power to change it. Which is why the distinction between democracy and republic is not merely pedantic.