Would you press the Red Button or Blue Button?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Would you press the Red Button or Blue Button?

  • Blue

    Votes: 22 17.1%

  • Red

    Votes: 107 82.9%
  • Total voters
    129
We started from an engagement bait Xitter post and ended up solving all of american politics. The internet sure is incredible.
 
I would press the red button, not because it guarantees survival, but because I know who's going to be pressing the blue button.
redblue.jpg
 
It's actually a nice trick, the wording makes it seem like it is a prisoners dilemma and virtue signallers want to make it seem like they'd be picking cooperate.
In truth there is no real choice, you'd pick red always. It has no possible downside and its upside is the same as the blue.

If you reword it, it becomes clear how silly you are.

RED: get 1000$ for certain
BLUE: a chance at getting 1000$ if at least 50% of button pressers choose blue.

or

RED: nothing happens
BLUE: you die if less than 50% of button pressers choose blue.

Bluefags are retarded virtue signallers.
 
DJ Grelle said:
It's actually a nice trick, the wording makes it seem like it is a prisoners dilemma and virtue signallers want to make it seem like they'd be picking cooperate.
In truth there is no real choice, you'd pick red always. It has no possible downside and its upside is the same as the blue.

If you reword it, it becomes clear how silly you are.

RED: get 1000$ for certain
BLUE: a chance at getting 1000$ if at least 50% of button pressers choose blue.

or

RED: nothing happens
BLUE: you die if less than 50% of button pressers choose blue.

Bluefags are retarded virtue signallers.
Click to expand...
First example is basically a reworded Newcomb's problem, which is 1000000% more interesting since it's actually more involved and requires some amount of thought.
1777321449211.png
 
DJ Grelle said:
Bluefags are retarded virtue signallers.
Click to expand...
They seem to think that if you want to ensure your own survival and not dying because some retards didn't press the blue button, you are therefore selfish and evil and "right-wing".

4733828058362137.jpg

Ask any of these virtual signaller, if there's a chance of death, between them and a random stranger. Which one would they choose?
 
Otterly said:
Isn’t there something missing? What’s the downside for red? Am I misunderstanding it? Surely everyone presses red and no one dies? Are some people not told what will happen or something?
Click to expand...

No. Some people just can't distinguish between seeming morality and actual effect. It reminds me of a survey of British voters done years ago that asked if raising the tax rate didn't bring in any additional money, should it still be done:
1777480628251.png

There's also likely a small subset of blue buttoners who press it in the view that they're willing to risk their lives to save people who are bad at logic. I fear such people might perish, however.

If it were done on a national rather than global scale, it might be more possible to press blue and live. Global... pretty dicey.
 
I would pick the blue button if children were included in the fray, otherwise going with red. There are an infinite number of reasons to pick the blue button, and simultaneously only two:

Reason A: You are retarded and don't understand basic logic.
Reason B: You are sympathetic to the Reason A retards and want to risk your life to save them. You are also, knowingly or not, banking on Reason C, D, and onward to bail you out.
Reason C: You are sympathetic to the Reason B people and want to risk your life to save them. You are also, knowingly or not, banking on Reason D, E, and onward to bail you out.
Reason D: You are sympathetic to the Reason C people and want to risk your life to save them. You are also, knowingly or not, banking on Reason E, F, and onward to bail you out.
Reason... (goes on to infinity)

The blue button campaign is a moral contagion that feeds on empathy, which is why it's effective on liberals. It also relies on the annihilation of human agency. The Reason B people don't respect the Reason A people's agency, otherwise they would permit them to annihilate themselves. To a certain extent, that's fine. What isn't fine are the Reason C and onward people, who perpetuate the contagion by throwing themselves into the grinder to save the Reason B people. Many of the Reason B people haven't thought that far ahead, but those who have are evil and should burn in hell for the lives they endangered to save morons.
 
Chris_Stuckmann said:
I would pick the blue button if children were included in the fray, otherwise going with red.
Click to expand...
Why do people keep thinking that children will pick blue? half of kids are psychopaths until they grow out of it and would always pick red. If you go to any elementary school, unless explicitly coached to pick blue they will pick red.

And if you are counting people who don't understand the question, how certain are you that they would even push a button in the first place?
 
Betonhaus said:
Why do people keep thinking that children will pick blue? half of kids are psychopaths until they grow out of it and would always pick red. If you go to any elementary school, unless explicitly coached to pick blue they will pick red.

And if you are counting people who don't understand the question, how certain are you that they would even push a button in the first place?
Click to expand...
Kids are psychopaths in the sense that they don't restrain their desires. They will be presented with an option to feel like a hero, and without thinking it through will pick the blue button, because they're dumb.

You are kinda right about me counting people who don't understand the question, but I think I could argue that the Reason A people don't even really need to exist. The Reason B people just need to think they exist.
 
I would pick blue. There are tons of good-hearted people who would either not choose red because they cannot comprehend it (like small children that believe in World Peace), or buddhists and jainists that abstain from all harm towards others.

I am also confident blue would win, if you follow a chain of events. It's likely over 50% of people either are babies + young children + down syndrome OR are people related to those people, who would be extremely sad or not want to live in a world without them.

ex: parents of a toddler, who don't know what the toddler could possibly pick, would both vote blue in an attempt to save their toddler.

I could understand someone picking red if everyone in their close personal life is a grown adult. I understand a lot of Kiwis are libertarians who value their inner circle above all else, so that makes sense to me.
 
The part that I find particularly absurd in this is how it essentially offsets the blame of whatever entity is doing the killing onto its hostages. It's not as if people want to be forced into such a choice and would be making it under some kind of duress.

If 100 average adults were held hostage by a cat obsessed dog hating maniac who said they could either declare cats are the best and be set free immediately, or say dogs are the best and be put in the potential kill pile unless 50 dog fans defiantly proclaim their affection, the maniac is still the person responsible for the outcome not his victims.

It's the same exact choice if this is a respectable maniac who is asking permission to kill you, but will decide not to kill anyone if more than half choose to die. Would you feel obligated to tell him you want to die even if you don't just to save the suicidal people or those that potentially misspoke? Would you blame yourself for their deaths or is it okay now because the phrasing of the question is less weighted?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom