🇺🇦 Λddı ⛨

❤️　🧡　🤍　🩷　💜 .**.❀༻〜ཐི𓆬ཋྀ〜༺❀.**. ❀ she/they/it/any ❀ afab ❀ ༻ζ 17 • INFP-T ⟆༺ ~155cm(5’1) ~18 bmi ~gw:39kg(85lbs)~ ୨୧ ..pan or gray? *sapphic* confused ୨୧ 十 Cali-US/CAN 十 Eng 十 Québécois 十 DMs open but i’m terribly shy ❤️　🧡　🤍　🩷　💜 #shedtwt (1/2)

@diovolojo @plasmarob the ravine in the hopes of being able to form the human bridge and prop any up who went this way too, whether intentionally or accidentally fell. while each red choice deprives the blues of potential manpower, harming blues chances of eliminating the only avenue of death.

@diovolojo @plasmarob this pic assumes a timeline of progression. the original hypothetical to my understanding is intended to be instantaneous, anonymous, and unable to communicate or coordinate with others before picking. more akin to pitch darkness going across a stable bridge or blindly going down

@StubornStalion @Keidar02 @KARMAENVY @HighJayster @ShapestSister @MaractusArgento @lowgradef alive babies are always good. one of the goals the ones taking a risk were trying to protect. a shame more didn’t try and save everyone though. Could have prevented all deaths. Not just half or 25% or even 1% would’ve been unacceptable to allow without trying to prevent

@AddisonBanana @Keidar02 @KARMAENVY @HighJayster @ShapestSister @MaractusArgento @lowgradef What if all the babies choose red and all the adult blue voters lose and die?

i picked blue too. seems like a logical answer since, if we all pick blue we all live. the only reason to pick red is out of fear of others picking red which is stupid because you are adding to the problem trying to dodge it.

@CoryRockFF @waldenpod otherwise need 100% to agree to “come be safe” to achieve the same result

@CoryRockFF @waldenpod if get half to agree can save everyone. or else would see 0 < x < 50 die

ugh you just want to feel morally superior so you choose the option that saves hundreds of millions of human lives 🙄

@CoryRockFF @waldenpod if purely only cared about your own self preservation yeah. but never every one in the entire world will 100% be that rational. I don’t want to see others killed when I could of helped eliminate the threat. And especially domt want to vote against those saving efforts

@AddisonBanana @waldenpod You’re close. You’re missing one important variable and I guess I’m not doing a good job at explaining it. Simply do not enter the danger. Red: no danger Blue: danger

@CoryRockFF @waldenpod hitting blue will never result in the deaths of others, only potentially yourself. hitting red potentially results in the deaths of others, but never yourself.

@AddisonBanana @waldenpod The point is there is no necessary threat. The blue button is the threat.

@CoryRockFF @waldenpod would think that collectively eliminating a threat would be better than allowing it to persist and gobble up any who go in for whatever reason. will never get 100% one way or the other. reds way results in deaths. a blue win no one dies.

@AddisonBanana @waldenpod Here’s what you’re missing. Nobody even has to put themselves in danger Press red = stay away from the fire Press blue = jump in the fire and and be killed unless more than 50% of people jump in the fire (which would put it out)

@CoryRockFF @waldenpod it’s presented as buttons. up to you how to interpret, not all will imagine it as jumping into fire. some kids might not understand or choose randomly. same for ones without all their faculties. I’ll still use scenario- you see someone you know fall in, do you try & save them?

@ArtFacility @baalzamon35 this one reminds me of the video of that spinning arm carnival ride that starts tipping over as it spins and one person tries to hold it down, then more see more help is needed. some do run away seeing it might collapse on them. but enough band together to hold it until it stops

@baalzamon35 More accurate but still silly proposition

The crusher is a great way of illustrating this problem. For the Red Button folks, they see this as an abstract where the crusher kills nobody until/unless they make an informed decision. Obviously, you'd get out of the way right? Hell, everyone should move, the scenario will wait long enough to get everyone out. For the Blue Button folks, they picture a helpless child or maybe even all helpless children trapped and are willing to risk their lives (on paper at least) to hold the crusher up and protect those unable or unwilling to move. Who wouldn't risk their life to save another? Or at least, WANT the courage to do so.

@CoryRockFF @waldenpod since blue otherwise has no affect on red win or lose, why don’t you publicly advocate for blue votes in the chance it does potentially save up to half the world, while privately picking red anyways outta self-preservation?

@AddisonBanana @waldenpod Reading comprehension is hard you I guess

@x_MoonlitShade the buttons are presented as the interface, and not guns or poison or trains or cliffs or alligators or whatever. some may try to think of imaginary equivalencies when they decide staring down these two buttons, but not everyone. will never get 100% red

Sure I agree with you here. What I find crazy is people saying shit like “if you press red you’re choosing to kill everyone who chose blue / you want them to die” like… imagine instead of buttons, there’s 2 guns. Everyone must shoot themselves in the head with a red or blue gun. The red gun is empty. The blue gun will magically resurrect everyone who committed suicide with it if over 50% of the population commits suicide with it. Would the red gun people be blamed in this scenario? Even though it’s the exact same scenario? No. I don’t think so.

One thing this button hypothetical really shows off is peoples’ inability to take accountability for their own actions and tendency to blame others for it. They always somehow miss the initial step that caused all this. They pressed the blue button first. THEN they die if red wins. It’s like when Person A cheats on their partner, and Person B finds out and tells the partner, then they say Person B destroyed their relationship. No. Person A did by cheating first. If you press the blue button, red voters aren’t killing you, you killed yourself by pressing it. There’s an initial step you’re blatantly ignoring. Insanity.

@x_MoonlitShade red voters dont seem to consider that every red press increases likelihood that blue dies. red weighs down the scales towards ‘make it harder for the blues to survive.’ even if not consciously the driving motivation. “I dont care as long as I’m safe”. then tries to rationalize it

@x_MoonlitShade or can simply get at least 50.1% of the world to agree that no one should die

@x_MoonlitShade I’ll rephrase to ‘you can only protect others if blue wins.‘ you might say then don’t put yourself into a situation that needs rescuing. but what about the most vulnerable of society, innocent young, the sick, ones unable or unwilling to decide what might be selfishly rational?

@MarsAutomatic @TravH_2 @F_Edits @CosmonautMarcus your choice tips the scale 1 more towards potentially killing up to half the population. or say, even in overwhelming red wins, with 99.99% choosing it, that still results in 830,000 in the world dead. Reds activate the kill switch. Blues deactivate it for all.

@TravH_2 @F_Edits @CosmonautMarcus Me choosing to live and you choosing to opt into a game of Russian Roulette is not me killing you.

You can argue all you want but Blue Button Gigachads won the vote on every poll and Seething Red Buttoners still have to justify their cowardice