Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Since @Starcraft 1 is free to play, could @Activision allow @NintendoAmerica put Starcraft 64 on the N64 Switch Online app? I would love to be able to play some Starcraft on the go.
English
Sharp Rival
3K posts
@quartz_crypto @OLUDAVID_D @_Healthyorg I wonder how much is psychological. The human knows there is a goal in mind. The horse probably says to itself "This is getting dumb" and has better things to do.
English
@OLUDAVID_D @_Healthyorg Anyone in fairly good shape who trains running for say a half a year can run a horse to exhaustion.
English
@SpaceHardcore88 @ShitpostRock2 Correct answer. Low team numbers make players point fingers at their teammates for failing.
Adding onto this, many games (with small teams) will have a ranking system. Now there is something on the line for the game. "You made us lose and rank down! Reeeee!"
English
@ShitpostRock2 Probably because there's less pressure to perform
In a 2v2, if your teammate messes up, you're likely dead
In a 5v5, it's basically the same thing
In a 12v12, if someone messes up, there's 11 other people, so mistakes aren't as bad
In a 50v50, I would assume it would be more fun
English
@Id10tzQuery @GhostofEk Our cultural institutions have made me not willing to put my livelihood in the hands of people who want me killed.
English
@GhostofEk Yes, you are the idiots.
You're actively trying to justify running from the very problem you created the second you pressed red.
And I am not wrong about this.
Red is the emotional response.
Blue is the logical conclusion and the current default of existence.
English
Question: do red button people not realize choosing red is why death is even on the table?
kon@k0ncept
question, the blue button people do they not understand human psychology and that humans will act in the best interest of themselves during a life or death decision?
English
@DangeN00dle The problem is, the rhetoric I have heard from people I once called my friends, neighbors, and cultural institutions over the last 10 years have made me unwilling to place my livelihood in their hands.
English
Here's a different way to approach it.
Forget morals and all, just think about logistic
Best case scenario for everyone to survive
Red = 100% votes
Blue = 50%+1 votes
Which one is easier to achieve from a logistical standpoint?
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
@thomastheglebe That is less that 1/4 the number of people who die in my state every day, so that comes off as a very small number.
English
@_USAtlas You set the example for your son that you should take unnecessary risks with nothing to gain from it.
English
@Timcast I am pressing the blue button because I want to set a good example for my son that everyone should press the blue button so there are more people alive to support Israel.
But upon seeing the results, I am now dead.
I gambled and lost.
English
@Retro__Machine @Timcast The implications of your comment indicate that you feel you are complicit in murder, as many of the luxuries of the first world are unfortunately still currently reliant on people working themselves to death.
English
@Kerikal_816 @ObviousRises Well, the game is effectively convincing your enemies to select blue, while sanctimoniously convincing the majority (including your allies) to select red. If you think about the game that way, you can gain another level of judging how people are arguing in X.
English
@ObviousRises If everyone picked the same side, everyone lives. If some but less than half choose red, everyone lives. If less than half choose blue, you choose to kill however many people. It becomes kill others to save yourself or risk yourself to save others. Basic ethics ngl
English
I think I understand why leftists are seething so hard about the blue/red button (pill) moral dilemma, its similar how they feel we need to "save" those "poor migrants" (who r*pe steal murder etc.) cuz "muh feelings" when in reality it's just suicidal empathy, explains a lot.
English
@matterasmachine The failing of @matterasmachine to think up an equivalent situation to the original question will be marked here as an example of their low intelligence.
English
Red button pressers: “you made up the tiger, it does not exist”.
Often the same people: “if you sin, you will get into hell after death”.
Matter as Machine@matterasmachine
English
@x_MoonlitShade yes they are. because there will never be a unanimous vote so someone will ALWAYS die if red wins. choosing red you are actively killing people, potentially billions or millions. risking my life to save them is worth the risk
English
picking red is not the intelligent option, you will never get a 100% pick on either side. but you just need majority to pick blue. genuinely don’t get the argument for red outside of selfishness and that’s fine be selfish but don’t act like it’s the intelligent answer
ℏεsam@Hesamation
inventing a sacrifice nobody needs
English
@cinnamontoastk The scary thing is blue button pressers are getting into the mindset that ~40% of the population wants to murder them. I hope these people can set back to reality.
English
Jump through all the hoops you want. Red button pushers are murders blaming their victims.
English
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.
English
@Daniel86Cycles @Anheroic13 @CriticalZaku Perhaps we should address our cultural institutions which are causing people to be comfortable with breaking from the tribe.
English
@Anheroic13 @SharpRival @CriticalZaku >Breaks trust with the tribe
>Butthurt the tribe calls them out
English
@marshyzaku If I felt superior, and wanted to feel superior, I wouldn't be trying to tell someone whom I seem to generally disagree with to read a book that will provide great insight into human psychology. I might even be opting to promote you to further make what I feel to be bad choices.
English
@SharpRival Yes, and now you feel superior for having changed your opinion which justifies you now acting identically to someone who made the choice immediately and reflexively denies all alternative viewpoints. Like I said, I understand you entirely now.
English
@marshyzaku It is more that I actually came into the picture of all this when my feed was full of arguments to gather information from, so my perspective was changed because I had time to think about the question (again, something covered in said book. I'm telling you, it is a good book).
English
@SharpRival Ah, I see, so you feel smug and superior because you changed your mind after thinking about it a little and that's why you're now set in your ways and don't need to actually argue your perspective on the issue. I understand entirely.
English
@Imperatrixsocia Too many civs to argue in a single X post. Serfs might be the better word to use. Soviets tried to murder my grandma for having the audacity of being a dirt poor farmer and placed their whole population under fear of being sent to a gulag if they said the wrong thing.
English
@SharpRival If all Romans were slaves, all soviets, all chinese, all Medieval, Spanish, British, Arabs, Persians etc etc in there points of history were slaves, then slavery must be a different system to you
English
@marshyzaku Again, read The Righteous Mind. It demonstrates Psych studies where once a person makes what they feel is a moral choice, it is nearly impossible to change their mind, no matter how much evidence you show them. I'm talking about that and you are arguing about the poll results.
English
@SharpRival It's okay to be mad that you're wrong but you should at least make an actual argument as to why you're right.
English
@Imperatrixsocia I haven't advocated for a specific form of government. I'm simply advocating for separation of powers, which open and free markets tend to promote
When an aspect of your livelihood is under full control of a single entity, that entity has control over you. You become their slave
English
@SharpRival You argue democracy is good either
It is not, democracy is just one type of government, just like Dictatorship it can be good
No system is inherint good or bad, its how its applied, Nazis, fascists, multiple types of far right and far left and center are bad.
English
@marshyzaku Please, man, stop arguing that you want to teach children to be suicidal. Holy shit, man.
English
@SharpRival Describing it as suicidal means you think it's more likely than not that over 50% of people press red. It is assured that 50% of all young children will press blue. Knowing this, the majority of parents will press blue because they don't want to live without their kids.
English
@Imperatrixsocia Absolute state control is a monopoly, homie. You are opting that the entity that created systemically racist police, ICE, and the military industrial complex that constantly lies us into wars should have further control on our livelihood. No thank you, fascist.
English
@SharpRival If you genuinely believe more free marketism in a 1800's since is the answer then I am afraid to say you are economically illiterate
A regulated mega corp (preferably under absolute state control) is the best way to ensure regulations are met. something America opposes
English