Allen Guarnes

If you guys find any videos of #AKMU, #QWER, or #IOI that do not have English subs yet, please let me know! I might just have them translated for my own enjoyment.. and share them to everyone while I'm at it!

Hina was SUPER funny here I swear she has talent for variety!! 🤣 youtu.be/6ggbgCpDOpM?si… Does it make sense to still upload an English sub video of this one? I think official ones are coming out though! #QWER #HINA #CHODAN

AKMU - Sibling duo who won Kpopstar 2 and remains to be one Korea's most beloved groups. Literally all song is self-composed by the older brother. Enough said. That rabbit hole is something you won't regret going into. Listen to literally any popular song by them. QWER - A kpop girl "rock band". Musically, most of them knew nothing about playing their instruments (except the drummer). The concept is to watch over them as a "growing" band. You watch them improve and be the best version of themselves every performance. Listen to "T.B.H" as a start. As a fan, you feel like you're a part of their journey. I love that aspect the best.

Recommend me some Kpop groups that aren’t New Jeans, ILLIT, Red Velvet, TWICE and LE SSERAFIM

1. Zen Browser - Best UI/UX. Containers are GODSENT. Only flaw is rendering-engine. 2. Brave - Chromium-based with a focus on privacy / I HATE that it has AI and Crypto bloat. 3. Helium - I'm just waiting for it to become #1. It just needs containers and translation IMO In spirit, Helium is my #1, but objectively it is still definitely Zen for me at the moment.

best browser ?

[ENG] The long-awaited basement table tennis showdown is finally here! Who will be the winner? (feat. Chodan) Source: youtube.com/watch?v=X__j-A… Requested by: @GaretJax777 Chodan is so cute in this video lol ~ Support what I do or sponsor a video! ☕ buymeacoffee.com/allenguarnes Support is completely voluntary. I don't need it to translate your video requests as long as the video is fun and entertaining. So go and find me untranslated hidden gems! #QWER #Chodan

@theramblingfool @BananaScientist I'm honestly interested to hear what makes you feel confident that more than 50% of the world would press Blue beyond an online poll.

@BananaScientist I am quite confident more than 50% of the world would press blue. You could say that makes me delusional. I would say that is an indication you are a cynic. Haha

Every Pro-red argument: (1) Cynicism: "It's impossible for blue to win. Don't be suicidal." (2) Narcissism: "There is no downside to pressing red." (3) Changing the hypo: "Babies don't count. That'd be stupid! So there's a blender..." (4) Psychopathy: "Blue pressers deserve to die." (5) General poor analytic reasoning: "If everyone just pressed red!"

You are right in that they may not be as equal as I think. Even so, even if I lower the bar significantly in hopes that some form of collective good will make up towards some meaningful change, it still doesn't add up. 50% of US population is around 170 million. A "measly" 1% of that is already an overwhelming amount, 1.7m people. I haven't seen even 1 percent of the US population get off their butt as a unified collective and do something to bring down any big bad actors. Apart from yapping online. See, with US alone, I've never even seen that 1% visibly band together anywhere for a good cause. And believe me, a force of 1.7m humans is an overwhelming amount of bodies that can force people into action. Am I oversimplifying things? Perhaps. But my point is those numbers only point towards the impossibility of 50% of people willingly risking their lives. And again, I hope I'm wrong. I know I'm being pessimistic about it, but that's a product of the current world we live in.

@allenguarnes @XiiGuardian @GillieAmanita If there was a button that would fix the atrocities of the world at the cost of my sacrifice, I'd press that for sure. Your comparison of someone risking their lives through a simple button press with a determined outcome vs active systematic reform is not as equal as you think

I'm a blue-presser HOWEVER I talked to a red-presser and it's not necessarily a selfish or antisocial choice. In that red's mind, blue is guaranteed to lose, because when your life is on the line, they believe more people will press red than was represented in an online poll. 1/

@Rothmus Yes because if you really had morals in the first place, you'd be judging yourself to those standards. Right?

Imagine you’re stranded completely alone on a deserted island. In total isolation, with no one else affected, can any of your actions still be considered moral or immoral?

Look man. I've already told you my own thought process. I can only speak for myself, and for me, whether it's an online poll or not, my thought process remains the same. 1st step: If I want to save everyone, the only realistic choice is blue. 2nd step: Look at the odds. Does the world look like a world that can produce a >50% blue majority? Which led me to think that's impossible. 3rd step: Since ive convinced myself that it is impossible, I guarantee my death by choosing blue. Result: If I choose blue, I die. So I choose red. Because I do not want to commit suicide and add to even more deaths. Of course, my thoughts are more complicated than this, but that's more or less the simplified gist of things. Was I able to stick to the belief? Definitely not in the face of impossibility. That's my point. I don't know if youre of the opinion that beliefs are infallible or something. I don't think so. To me, beliefs are frail, especially when confronted with death. Only saints and martyrs have proven otherwise, and they remain to be the minority right? Do I claim to be right? Certainly not. I could be wrong. Again, I'm not in the business of concluding whether people pass or fail, or who's wrong or right.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita But look at what you said “at an online poll, without real consequences” in this you still chose red? If you cant see that in a situation without any consequences your choice was in contradiction to your stated belief. Something there is not adding up

I never once claimed my choices were right. In fact, I said in numerous occasions that I want to be wrong. I want to be convinced. Only thing I ever said in confidence was 50% is impossible in real life. And even that I wanted to be proven wrong. And again, going back to blue winning all the time in polls. I even acknowledge that. Only thing I ever commented about it was that it's consistently 56-58%, at an online poll, without real consequences. 6 to 8% beyond the goal post. I hope that gave everyone confidence, because it didn't give me any.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita Loooool ok man bow out if you must. There is a reason why this is a moral question. People are really trying to still proclaim they made the right choice when the opposite result won time after time.

@zefur @GillieAmanita I don't know what else to tell you... If your thoughts on right and wrong do not include your own personal actions and the world at large, is that even a thought experiment?

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita No because again you are talking about actions that this question is not measuring. This is a thought experiment measuring people’s thought on right and wrong not their actions.

You see I'm not in the business of telling people whether they failed or not. If you think I failed, so be it. I know for a fact that it is different from a "low stakes button press". But I willingly chose to exercise my mind and think further than that, which is what I assumed is why you chose to have a conversation with me. Clearly I had more thoughts beyond the purpose of the thought exercise. It made me think about a lot of things - good or bad - about my own humanity. You can choose to remain contained within your rules and judge people whether they failed or not. I'm choosing discourse.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita Yes. A real life situation with real stakes. Can you not see how that is different to a low stakes button press. This is the minimum of agency of risk to test your morals. Your life is not in imminent danger like that of real life and you’ve already failed.

You prove my point. I said in numerous occasions, that the world as we speak, clearly shows that 50% is an impossibility. This is what the world has proven, because big bad actors are still at large. Which is why I say 50% is an impossibility today. Slavery is bad, and it lasted long enough that a lot of people suffered. From my POV, we are in a time period where people still show that they know what is bad, but aren't doing anything about it. I do hope that one day, the world can come to a point where that 50% can actually band together. But that time is clearly not now. Just watch the news.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita Look at this way. Some people knew slavery was wrong at a base level but not everyone protested or fought for their rights. But guess what enough did.

You talk in black and white. People are more complicated creatures than that. Not actively working towards your beliefs, doesn't always mean you stopped beliving in it. You see someone getting robbed. Robber has a gun. Your beliefs tell you not to be a bystander. To help people out. But you dont. You feared for your life. The guy has a gun. Helping out more than likely means getting shot. You go home. You feel guilty. That's a fact. Red pressers will feel the guilt as well for sure. Beliefs can be weak when faced with certain death. If you think 50% of the world are capable of overcoming that fear, then honestly, I do hope you're right. I'm all for it.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita If your stated goal is to save everyone then you pick red then you don’t actually believe in the cause at base level. Because you are actively working against making it happen. This isn’t a question that targets people’s actions it’s one that targets their beliefs.

I agree. It measures beliefs. But what I've learned in life is that even beliefs can be frail when confronted with death in their faces. I don't blame keyboard warriors. I'm sure a lot of them believe what they are saying online. But very few of them are willing to put their words into actions. And I think even more of them are unable to keep to their beliefs at gunpoint.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita Your last paragraph is why this question is completely a moral question. This shows people’s moral inclination at base levels. It’s not measuring actions but beliefs. People know what is wrong but it is true not everyone confronts it in life. This shows how many are at 1st step

What are you talking about? When did I say getting 100% of people to do the same thing is easier than 50%? Clearly, I agree that 50% is easier relatively. But I'm of the opinion that it's already a lost cause. 50% is easier than 100% sure, but taking into consideration world events, that 50% is impossible and the world clearly shows that these numbers do not exist beyond the internet. So from my POV, blue is an impossibility. Therefore, by choosing blue, I'm adding myself to the list of people guaranteed to die - which is suicide. I'm not trying to show myself to be the better person. It is what it is. I want to be wrong as well, and to be proven otherwise that the 50% can actually band together for something concrete. But world events have shown that people have chosen to be indifferent to the sufferings of others. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. Just look at the news. How I wish I was wrong.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita Your logic is flawed if you think getting 100% of people to do the same thing is easier than 50% of people.

@XiiGuardian @GoatMcLean_ @GillieAmanita I sincerely hope, that if the real thing were to happen to all of us, that there are more people like you than people like me who no longer have the same level of trust in humanity like you do. I sincerely want to be in the wrong and want to be convinced otherwise.

@GoatMcLean_ @allenguarnes @GillieAmanita I’m picking blue because I can’t have a hand in killing people. There is a good reason. You just don’t see it.

I think no one should be voting using only a single criteria. You think red pressers just want people dead? My desired outcome is the same, saving everyone, by choosing blue. Then I think about the odds. How likely is that outcome from happening? With the current state of the world as we speak? Definitely not. Absolutely impossible. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is. Then blue button becomes a choice that will clearly kill me. Why would I choose to die? Again, I can't stress this enough, I wish it wasn't like that. It's not a comfortable decision to make. But the world has so far convinced me that the majority are keyboard warriors, because no group of people have been shown stopping the big bad actors apart from their online attacks and dismay.

@allenguarnes @GillieAmanita When you vote do you only vote because you think your choice will win or do you vote because you want that desired outcome? I want the desired outcome of saving everyone. Not just the guaranteed one of my life.

It can still be. The thing is the world is not black and white. Is our qualifier for good people just black and white depending on whether the person is willing to put their lives at stake or not? That's not how I see the world. Choosing to be realistic, and not wanting to be another number to the casualties, does not make a person bad or evil. So many people choose to help people, but not all of these people are willing to help people inside a place being dropped on by bombs. So yeah, it is still worth living. You have a future. Life goes on. And who knows? Maybe the world will come to a point where people are so much in harmony that dilemma is no longer even a dilemma. But that time is definitely not now. At least not from what I see.

@allenguarnes @SCHIZO_FREQ And by that point, is it really worth living?

Nobody in the entire crowd was willing to step in and help a completely innocent woman being stabbed to death on a train. And that's IN THE US!! You really think the average person in the world is lining up to altruistically smash the blue button??

But the thing is, it's not like I think people arent good. I believe the majority are good people. A lot of people will choose to do good despite inconveniences. I know they exist, and that there are a lot of them. Risking their lives, however? That's what I can clearly see not happening. The difference between me and blue pressers I think, is that I don't assume someone who picks red is bad. These are people that might be actively helping out their communities and doing good. It doesn't make them evil for suddenly choosing to fear for their lives, thereby invalidating all the good they've done in life. Going back to your examples, sure there are a lot of them. Nurses, police, firefighters, they all fight their local battles. I appreciate it. But the blue red button dilemma assumes people will band together to fight for the greater good against the greater evil. Again, looking at the big threats the world is currently facing as we speak, these are all actionable things that a fraction of those 50% have chosen to ignore or get mad about online at best. It's in the news. They are aware about it. They wake up learning death in numbers as casualties of war. I see no people marching towards the white house or stopping Putin and it's Russian war.

The way I see it, the blue button pressers are the same people who will run into a burning building to save a stranger. Firemen do it daily. Cops protect people daily. Yes there are bad ones, but they are massively outnumbered by the good ones. Think of all the men in special forces who have saved hostages in foreign lands. Putting their lives at risk to save others. In my view getting to 51% isn’t hard. I’m a nurse so I see it daily too, people willing to risk it all for strangers. Paramedics, firefighters, cops, parents who will die for their kids. When Hurricane Helene tore through North Carolina, thousands of people brought their own aircraft to help people. Thousands of people donated time and resources to help strangers. When an earthquake rocks a city, people help. When a hiker is lost in the woods, dozens of people come together for a search. We obviously have vastly different views of humanity. And I suspect that’s the real test here. Can you trust your fellow man or not? I’m sorry you see your fellow man so poorly.

I know, and I appreciate them. Going back to my prior post, I believe majority of people are good people. A lot of people are willing to take inconveniences for the greater good. But risk their lives? In my country, I know of people who actively help out orphanages. But they've never once chosen to go and help out war-torn areas. I don't think they're bad people. Fearing for their lives, that's not a bad thing. They are definitely good people. They will choose to do good as much as they can, but risking their lives - that's for martyrs and saints.

@allenguarnes @gameskyjumper @GillieAmanita There's more people doing good work than we might think. Countless charities and community groups effecting positive change. I used to volunteer for HASH, a group that brings HIV test administrators to people who are afraid to go to social hygiene clinics.