rhyano_
1.7K posts
@Anheroic13 @InverseGps Your logic is very short sighted, Not only will your red vote contribute to mass death, it will also lead to society collapsing due to the biggest loss of human life in history if red wins.
the society you live and depend on, which will lead to you suffering.
English
have red pressers ever considered that a 50% is easier to achieve than 100%?
Maririn~@TopGyaru
Blue button arguments be like: "But what if" "But what if" "But what if" "But what if" Red arguments be like: "Press the red button and you win"
English
@mean_mystic @Anheroic13 @InverseGps I doubt they'd be able to withstand the mental cataclysm that would happen as the weight of so many lives comes crashing down especially with how many loved ones they would lose. Most humans cannot cope with taking 1 life let alone huge swathes of humanity.
English
@Anheroic13 @InverseGps No, it’s because we can consider the knock on effects. Like even if I exclude children which is not what the original prompt implies if 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, or even 49.999% repeating died red voters would have a materially worse quality of life from the sudden supply chain shocks.
English
@TwunkJunkMD @awawawhoami I keep seeing people say that blue society without blue voters would collapse and like...
English
@awawawhoami If the world stays the same, they live. If the world gets remarkably worse because everyone who believes in humanity dies, they still live. Because they are the ones who don’t believe in humanity.
English
@Coby_Hughes @IcebergActual @totoriscreens Blues won in a poll that accounts for 0.0038% of the global population, with only 56% of votes on a poll that doen't even have the real life or death consequences
English
@IcebergActual @totoriscreens Blue won in every poll on here btw. That alone should tell you there’s more empathic people than not. You’re just mad that your worldview lost. Every time.
English
I’ve noticed that the blue button pickers all have this sort of animosity and vitriol towards the people who choose red. A self-righteous moral posturing that implies they are better than you, while claiming to be more virtuous.
Almost synonymous with today’s politics.
notsoErudite@notsoErudite
Since everyone was very curious my answer, my answer is obviously blue. Gotta save the naive, the kids, the blue lovers, and the principally hope-pilled people. You red button pickers need therapy.
English
@TwittaUser22 @VakarisSan and honestly, either one of those questions is ridiculous. The only question that matters is "which one will the others pick?" There is approximately a 1/110,000 chance that your vote has any impact. If any one side won by two or more votes, changing sides wasn't going to help.
English
@TwittaUser22 @VakarisSan The question I'm answering with red is "which option is the most realistic whilst saving the most people?"
I don't believe we're getting 4.2 billion people to make a selfless decision and hit blue.
I do believe we're getting at least 70% to hit red and cut our losses.
English
One side has to hope to get over 50% everytime.
The other side has to do nothing.
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
@KyleSoobas @VakarisSan That would require 4.2 billion people to not make the easy and safe decision to save themselves. I don't believe in humanity to do such a thing
English
@VakarisSan Looking at it as sides is the problem. In general I think we can all agree we would like to avoid billions dying, right? The only realistic way to do that is to get over 50% blue.
English
@VakarisSan Because I’d rather die than press a genocide button they murders half the world’s toddlers if enough people press the genocide button.
Also, I’m not a sociopath so I would never describe murdering half the world’s toddlers as a win.
English
@Hero_of_Legend1 @frontierism The idea that red button pushers only care about themselves is fundamentally flawed. Explain your reasoning.
English
@frontierism No they’re not. They’re the ones taking them home, or pushing them away into the side of someone’s car.
People who return carts are the peoole who care about more than just themselves.
English
Red button pushers are the same ones returning shopping carts btw
English
@Jeff_like_Feff The most interesting part to me is the fallacy that red people are selfish and aren't empathetic
English
The Red/Blue button topic is interesting if only to see that people think there's a 'right' answer when it's more of a philosophical question that meant to out you for what type of person you are, be that empathetic, mistrusting, analytical, self-preserving, logical or morale.
English
@Evilagram @HuntForLifts You can't ensure that nobody dies, that's the point. The only person you truly have agency over is yourself.
English
@HuntForLifts No one deserves to die. We should ensure no one dies.
English
You have two buttons. Red and blue. If 50% of people press blue, nobody dies. If anything less than 100% of people press red, some percentage of people will die.
Which is easier to coordinate? getting 50+% to press one button, or getting literally everyone to press the other?
English
@Evilagram @TheClassicEXP I could use this same illogic to say blues are just suicidal. It's a bastardization of what actually goes on in many of their heads.
I'd prefer save everyone, but know damn well that my vote one vote isn't tipping scales. I'll save myself.
English
@TheClassicEXP In this thread I am explicitly pointing out that the moral framing is not the same. Red pressers are not consequentialists, they are individualist.
English
@Mitchendo64 @suiseifan322 Mr. Beast's survey represents the largest number of people that have ever been asked this question, and it only accounts for 0.0038% of people that would've actually been voting if it was real.
and only 56% of that .0038% even said blue.
English
@suiseifan322 Why? multiple polls have been done and blue won everytime.
English
@ClockworkStatue @ShitpostRock2 For reference, this is a pie chart that shows what all people that participated compared to all people on earth
English
@ShitpostRock2 Ok? And their own interest is that they have their own families and people they also want to protect.
Does the man in china give a shit about you? No. Does he care about his family? Yes.
It's not hard to figure out. It's why blue keeps winning.
English
High trust society is when you put your life on the line and hope that some stranger 10,000km away chooses the same illogical retarded option as you
The entire point is that most societies are NOT high trust and will vote for their own interest. Don't trust them with your life
ＣＯＲＳＯ@Corso_Margutti
English
@CollapsedSkuIl Woah! That doesn't sound very moral, empathetic, and considerate of you!
English
@theramblingfool @GUtseck Explain how this an example of general poor analytic reasoning
English
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!"
English
@MJuice95 @GUtseck @theramblingfool Part of the hypothetical mentions that you aren't able to collaborate or discuss your answer.
If I realize that millions of other people ALSO will vote red because they don't believe, I can't do anything to convince them to change their mind, so why would I still vote blue?
English
@GUtseck @theramblingfool Yes, because if all the people who thought like you pushed blue, that would be millions of people. That's like saying don't vote in elections or for mayors. Those types of people are an anchor on society.
English
@theramblingfool (6) Apathy: Unless the vote came down to a tiebreaker, my vote only affects myself.
If blue won by 2 or more votes, voting red doesn't change the outcome and I lived either way.
If red won by 2 or more votes, voting blue is suicide, and wouldn't have helped.
English