In case some of you didnt know there was a global social experiment a few days ago.Basically its like this:>if you press the blue button you have a 50% of survival assuming at least 50% of the world picks blue >if you press the red button you have a 100% chance of survival but all those who pressed blue will die if more than 50% pick redBasically the gist is, or what this breaks down to, is that are you as a sane and logical person willing to risk your life for retards who will press blue either mistakenly or out of idiocy?Thats the purest form of the question. Do you place your life above those who are less fit for survival? Personally i pick red everytime for this question. Dont even have to think about it. Its wild to me that there are people who pick blue.
I just think it's a simple question of numbers, western society and specifically american society is extremely individual centric, when most other societies around the world are collective, in order for red and blue to have the same outcome it requires blue only over 50% of presses, while red requires 100% of all people in the world to press it. As much as I would like to know I'm safe either way I know that my press matters and I would rather help out so no one gets harmed and risk my life in doing so, than letting at the very least 2 billion people lose their lives because "well at least *I'm* safe so all those deaths were justified"
>>43466702Have fun dying for a bunch of retards i guess
>>43466621>some stupid twitter post with like 100k likes>global social experiment
>>43466760That's assuming that most people will press red, which it being unverifiable is the whole point of the experiment. But still I don't get why call people who are trying to do the right thing "retards", like that's just rewarding tribalism.>you want to start sedentary agriculture with your community? lmao you know that people can just come here and raid you right? retard, no one is going to do sedentary agriculture
>>43466621>red buttonmalebrained>blue buttonfembrained
>>43466621A transbian would pick the blue button, try to press the red button, then die inexplicably.
>>43466621What button do I press if I want to die?
>>43466902Blue
the entire thing is down to a misunderstanding i thinkon one hand there are people who are used to thought experiments and understand that>but what if a baby randomly picks blueis not in the spirit of things. to these people, this is like asking if the brakes work in the trolley problem - 'but what if i click the lever and it does nothing?'. to them the essence of this question requires everyone pressing the button to be rational actors capable of making an informed choice based on the information presented to them, and so red is the only sensible choice.on the other hand you have another group of people who do factor in those who cannot make such a rational informed choice, and so voting blue is obvious in order to protect the most vulnerable. this is a more practically minded approach that moves away from a thought experiment and imagines this question in the context of real life.there are also those who think 'i will pick blue to save everyone' because they cannot understand the question. and those who pick red because they want to live and thats all. these people are dimwits and are not really engaging with it at all. and OP i suppose who is a mix of the above.
people should pick redtoo much of the world is children who will make an assumed random choice, in poverty where self preservation is learned behaviour, and selfish. there's also no reason to virtue signal with a private vote so many people will click red out of fearpeople really think 1.5 billion jeets will click blue? it's just narrow minded 1st world thinking
>>43467125individualism is learned, i do think the impoverished children and the jeets will overwhelmingly choose blue. the real first world thinking is assuming that the world is as selfish and self centered as you, or that poor people and/or third worlders are incapable of empathy or of collective thinking.
>>43467203nope, morals are learned, we start out as selfish little fucks who will do anything we want without considering the views of others
>>43466621Press blue and hope red wins.Make my day.Sadly blue will win, because the West, where the hyper-capitalistic environment encourages red-pushing only makes 1/8 of the population, tendency sinking. The other 7/8 take their religions and philosophies serious. A concept that genuinely baffles the Western mind.
>>43467241objectively not true if we drifted towards anti social behavior we wouldnt have society at all because humans would have never made it to the caves, all throughout the animal world with social species that drifts towards altruism and cooperation, even in humans, proven things like the big mother study, the hill paradigm, the very on the nose named "altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees" by felix warneken, and the list goes on. and that's not even considering the archeological findings of fossil proof of disabled individuals being cared for in pre-history
>>43467608>>43467022It genuinely does baffle my mind that people are so stupid.If i pressed red and found out 49% pressed blue, id feel little guilt. If anything id think good riddance, dumb fucking retards weren't fit to survive anyhow. A part of me would be sad that naive kind dumb people all got genocided.I think morally speaking, its pretty clear as a red pusher im the evil one here.Ane i have no doubt once all blue are dead us red pushers will usher in an age of unparalleled torment and sociopathy. I think thats just how its meant to be. Have fun and play in your paradise you happy little blue tards.I have PROFITS TO BE MAKING CHU CHU THE LABOR MACHINE HAS TO BE CHURNING!!!Life aint a fairy tale its A 9 TO 5 WHERE YOU SUFFER AND ALL THOSE WHO CARE FOR EACH OTHER ARE WEAK PATHETIC PARASITES
>>43467714"naive kind dumb people all got genocided" my bad for choosing the option that causes the least harm? my bad for being okay with giving my life for a cause greater than myself? my bad for not being super tribalistic and not pressing the "I'm okay if people die as long as *I* get to live, it's all about ME ME ME ME NO ONE ELSE MATTERS" button, keep in mind that you exist today because of dumb kind naive retards that fought for your right to not be treated as a fucking slave, think your 9-5 is the hardest thing ever and life aint a fairy tale? the dumb kind naive retards 200 years ago fought so you wouldn't be forced to work 12 hours per day 7 days a week
>>43467676yes, in secure environments people develop, but that's not enough of the world
>>43466818sedentary agriculture, unlike the blue button, has a positive benefit against their respective alternatives.
>blue wins: nothing happens>red wins: up to half of the world population dies>everyone itt saying they'd press redam I stupid or are you guys just evil. shouldn't everyone's goal to keep everyone alive. there's no way everyone on earth could coordinate to press red, so why not just get 50.0001% to press blue
>>43467785THATS FUCKING RIGHT ELIIE ITS MEONLY I FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE THATS HOW THE UNIVERSE FUCKING WORKSDO YOU THINK YOUR KINDNESS WILL BUY YOU OTHER PEOPLE'S KINDNESS?DO YOU THINK YOU WILL BE SPARED FROM BETRAYAL BECAUSE YOUR HEART FEELS GOOD?YOU'RE NAAAIVEE MY BOY YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NAIVETHERE IS ONLY ONE NATURAL LAW AND IT IS SURVIVAL
>>43467836if you can read the question you should press red. you're acting is if other presses are random instead of their own rational actors. and rationality states red has no negatives and blue has no unique positives
>>43467817what even classifies as a secure environment and are you aware that the pattern of altruism remains even in animals, who don't have such "secure environment", and the aqal model is not scientific its speculative philosophical cartography
>>43467927people are tribal my question to the people who say 'it's easier to get 51% of people to click the blue button instead of 100% red' i say, true, but it's also easier to get the 50 people you immediately care about to click red
>>43467822the blue button has arguably more positives than sedentary agriculture, even ignoring the obvious logistical problem that at the very least hundreds of millions of people dying on mass
>>43467840THATS NOT HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS DUMBASS YOU NEED OTHER PEOPLE FOR EVERY SINGLE MOMENT OF YOUR LIFE YOU ANTI SOCIAL RETARD
>>43467958the blue button has no unique positives and is defined by its unique negative of requiring a threshhold to be met in order to not kill people.
>>43467858yeah, you're right that red is the technically right choice. in the game theory sense everyone with perfect logic would press the red button. but given that it's such a heated debate not everyone has perfect logic. when the buttons are laid out as "save everyone" vs "kill the other group" it's no surprise that a lot of people are going to pick "save everyone" without a second thought. my biggest priority is not my own survival but that of the group, and the question makes blue sound like the ethical choice so that's what I think the group would pick, so I would pick it too
>>43467858humans are not rational but regardless rationality will tell you that billions dying on mass including loved ones is bad actually
>>43466621out of the people who press blue are going to be children, those intellectually disabled and those willing to risk themselves to protect those childrenif you vote red you're voting for a world ruled by self interested 3rd worlders who would happily sacrifice others for a chance to get aheadlike do you want to live in a world where all those who risked themselves for the sake of others are gone? i guess it's up to you but a world where everyone who risked themselves for the good of others is gone would be filled with evil and the people who risk themselves are what makes life worth living
>>43467989nobody has to die, everyone has access to the consequence-free life button (red). blue is the only way for anyone to die, as it wagers the life of the person pressing it for no benefit, since everyone can live through the red button with no risk.
>>43466621There is literally no benefit in pressing blue. I dont get it. Why would I want to consider not picking red?
>>43467973GGGGRGRRRRRREEAAGGRR FUCK YOU I SMASH YOUR WEAK MINDSET APARTI CHOSE FUCKING DEATH OVER BEING A FUCKING WEAK WILLED BLUE FAGGOT
>>43467957i dont think thats true at all, in fact i would like to see you try that, people in the real world arent as self centered and sociopathic as 4channers, i would even hazard a guess that a good 50% of people who say they choose red, in the heat of the moment their biological need to cooperate for the good of the wider group will override whatever petty notion of "rationality" they have
>>43468024there is nothing self centered or sociopathic about pressing the live with zero negative impact button. there is no need for cooperation when everyone has access to the live with zero negative impact button.
>>43468011>consequence free>kills all the people who picked bluepressing red is not an inaction, though, it's an active choice to not cooperate with the group
>>43468011again, see>100% of people required for no one to die while pressing red>50.0000001% required for no one to die while pressing bluethis is a retarded argument and if you think even nearly everyone in the world is going to choose red because of "well technically" you are retarded
>>43468040>zero negative impact button>millions die???
>>43468056its not a technicality it is basic understanding of the two options. the buttons might as well say live or maybe live. you have to be actually mentally retarded to not see this.
>>43468066why didn't they pick the zero negative impact button? your only answers are bullshit like babies randomly picking without understanding which is not how thought experiments work.
>>43468019is my will weak because i'm okay with dying for a greater causeor is your will strong cause you killed millions just because you were too pussy to even risk dying even for a momentthink about it nona...
>>43468056you're approaching this question as if only one person is told what the buttons do instead of everyone.
>>43468051cooperation is something done to achieve a best outcome but the best outcome is achieved with the "selfish" option here, therefore there is no reason to do the cooperative option.
>>43468072>basic understanding of the buttons>relies on a universal choice of 8 billion people choosing one thingare you autistic like genuinely because your autism is showing by your poor comprehension of people and your tunnel vision about an extremely skewed and retarded way to see the problem
>>43468095and yet, everyone did get told what the buttons do and here we are. blue won the original Twitter poll. the average person is not a game theory 4channer, they just want everyone to live
>>43468095and what makes you think that the species known for cooperation and social behavior will behave extremely anti social
>>43468121in theory, yes. in practice, there is 0 chance that everyone coordinates to pick red. so the best realistic outcome is that over 50% pick blue and nothing happens
>>43468128>>43468134>>43468138the question was deliberately phrased to trick retards and/or reveal suicidal empathy present in westoid minds. anyone can be walked through the fact that red is correct easily if they're not dug their heels in the sand. you don't need to be a game theory god, you just need to read the question. please all of you commit suicide now goodbye.
>>43468166in practice 99.8% would press red now go trip over a knife
As a transbian: if any other transbian tells you she's pushing the blue button, she's 100% a cisfoid bootlicker. Anyone who's not a smooth brained mongoloid or a cis white woman of the "I'd let every brown with a violent crime arrest history enter our country immediately because I'm so empathetic!! nothing to do with rape fantasies btw" type will, without a shadow of a doubt, press the red button.
>>43468210correct.
>>43468210why is every red button pusher so hostile all the time? why are you insulting everyone like this what makes you so bitter
>>43468210i miss when transbian meant logical t4t goddesses but then wombyn worshippers invaded and took over the term.
>>43468223I'm bitter because I'm tired of the bullshit and I've never seen such greater bullshit than this in my life.
>>43466621I posted elsewhere and explained why red is deceptive and blue is the optimal choice, it requires rethinking the experiment a little: I find the option, to be Blue very obviously the correct choice. Why? Here's my reasoning, let me examine the problem and tweak it abit. The 'Private vote' part implies every vote is anonymous and no one know what or when others are voting for, and the result won't take effect until after the vote concludes. What if we rearrange this so that the vote is linear, one person voting after the next and you see who votes for what, right in front of you. (See: Squid games).Logically, if anyone was reasonable the choice would be simple. IF everyone votes red than everyone survives, but if 100% of voters choose blue no one dies either. Both 'all red/blue' present good options! Trust is required for this, but all it means is after the 1st vote is cast, the 2nd person would repeat the first's decision to make sure the vote is consistent. Vote Red, everyone after votes red. Vote blue, everyone 2nd and after votes blue. Everyone votes the same all the way thru. Simple! (If you don't understand this logic, research the Monty Hall Problem or The three prisoners)Except its not!Because this expects everyone works together and no one is malicious or unstable. For example, the first person to press against the voting pattern throws the whole thing off. This could fuck things up for everyone, and while you may think 'Why would you possibly want that?' as the red and blue presses trickle in, you cannot account for people not being dicks or ruining a clean tally. A 100% red/blue outcome would be optimal but you cannot ensure this since you don't control other people's votes or expect them to vote logically. If the first person picked red, but then someone random started choosing blue down the lie, people WOULD start dying and there might not be a way to prevent it.(1/2)
>>43468251kill yourself
the actual real big brained take: we need to protect blue button pushers because the world is already competitive enough- removing all the retards means i'll just have to try even goddamn harder because of you no chill having motherfuckers.
I'd vote blue just because I'd rather die than live in a society made up of spiritual ancaps.
>>43468170again it would be really awesome to know how hundreds of millions dying on mass is the correct option, I have read the question dozens of times, and once again I believe that blue is the correct choice because I am not the center of the world.>>43468184literally unfalsifiable belief slop but if it matters, which it doesn't because statistically you will just double down on your beliefs, even on 4chan a website known for cynicism and disregard for human life blue still won>>43468210literally just racism but, you know, maybe they value human life
>>43468259the competition is those retards though because they can be paid less and we don't care as a society about doing things well just doing them at all. if you kill all the blutards maybe we can re organize to actually utilize our collective intelligence instead of subsidizing incompetence
>>43468287kill yourself
>>43468251(2/2)So basically once that starts happening and people vote against the 'first voter' pattern, for whatever interests you're screwed. You cannot exactly predict how the pattern will continue at that point or how many people will die. How do you prevent deaths and society from collapsing? Now here's the catch. Since the first person gets to see everyone else's vote, they can make a generous assumption the 2nd person, and 3rd and hopefully start of the chain will be follow what they press, granted this assumption they know one benefit voting blue goes. If the majority vote blue, even if 49% are malicious and break the chain, than everyone will be safe. Voting Blue initially and onwards gives you a cushion against the kind of dickery I mentioned earlier so even if people decide to reject the obvious 'all-vote one way' reasoning, everyone will have better odds of all being mostly okay since the chain started with blue. Verse if it started with red where everyone would be incredibly suspicious the very moment people changed votes and it threw everyone off.As it so happens if everyone starts with blue, eventually there will be a blue chain and if a malicious more than 50% do break it somehow, well... they're mostly screwed in the long run. But at that point it's not even like they chose wrong, it's that the people who chose red just actively murdered them.If you apply this stationary logic to the original scenario you can see why it's counterproductive to vote red. It would be easy to see that people voting blue would be best for society, there's one glaring problem. Voting against your own interests would be completely useless as you have no guarantee of the next person doing so, plus if you're wrong about how society will vote it means you may screw yourself over by voting for an option you prefer that would be fine if people voted against it.
>>43468308kill yourself
>>43468312>>43468255Epic post rawr rolfcopter XD!>looks for the upvote like buttonw-what why is there no like button your post was so EPIC
>>43468332kill yourself
>>43468170>suicidal empathymind virus terms. Literally taken over by a Psy-OP by jeets and jews.
Retards who say 'I'd press red' don't understand that they're actively the only ones endangering the scenario. It's like if you had two buttons 'Don't get eaten by a lion, spare everyone.' and 'Unleash a giant big fucking lion on everyone that pushed the other button, but me unless maybe half of everyone presses the other button', you'd be an autistic psycho to press the 2nd.
>>43468354OOVER 9000!!!! so funnnnnnnnniiiiii XDDDDDDD
>>43468019isnt the thing in this tv series that villtrumites unwittingly develop empathy for their human mates? villtrumites are blue faggots deep down. you are a blue faggot. you dont want to live in a red button world>>43468308>people who chose red just actively murdered thembut voting blue doesnt mean you actively consented to suicide? fail to see your logic since you still seem to work your propositions in this frame of self-interest (anti-blue)
>>43468011nobody has to die, everyone has access to the consequence-free life button (blue). red is the only way for anyone to die, as it wagers the life of the person pressing it for no benefit, since everyone can live through the blue button with no risk.
>>43467858>you're acting is if other presses are random instead of their own rational actorsIf everyone was rational actors they'd just all press 100% blue or 100% red. But no rationality can ensure you to know that for sure. That makes it effectively random which way people will view the best way to save everyone, sparing they have better odds getting half blue than everyone voting red.in the absence of such rationality you'd be better off going with blue for atleast having a 50% chance to save humanity.
>>43468393No. It's more like:There's a massive lion around who's intensely autistic and extremely hungry. You can either get the fuck away from there or paint yourself in zebra blood so as to attract him. If enough people do that, the autistic lion will feel overstimulated by the smell and experience so much indecision anxiety that it will end up killing itself before eating anyone.
>>43468404Not in the 1st-blue voter case, because you're just following the pattern the very first voter set, trying to get end the experiment. Which would be easier since once you reach 50% of the line, an all-blue vote will have ended it.If the first person votes red everyone else should vote red too, BUT you cannot depend on everyone following thru on that unless you're just stupid and nor can you for the scenario where the first person votes-blue.So your best chance of foolproofing it is picking the option where "We only need half the voters and can cushion some protest or dick presses of the opposite instead." If you first choose Blue and start a chain of blue-expectation, you do that. If you first choose Red, you basically just ensure people will die and there's no way to counteract it.The thing is that blue initial domino is better to start because there's almost no way to actively consent suicide from it but it starts the possibility of people trying to murder you just out of spite or kicks.
I went with blue because I don't think people are rational and I think most people who would press red would do so for selfish reasons. I would rather risk death than live in a world that solely consists of red button pushers.
>>43468442thats an extremely dishonest way of framing it
>>43468442Uh, no. The red voter is actively and in the context of their vote, also voting 'Kill the blue voters', so they're contributing and asking for the other side to die. They're not getting the fuck away. There is no neutral vote.
>>43466621blue because I have an iq above 2
>>43468489>because you're just following the pattern the very first voter set, trying to get end the experimentin a real situation that wouldn't be the case; it's life or death, not a game of following the leader. this here also assumes everyone is walking into that room has the same arbitrary game theory as you (which they should be arbitrarily held accountable for), instead of their own scruples against the idea as free individuals. you can figure out the logisitcs and what people are statistically likely to do, but it doesnt foolproof the end, espeicially in a way to buffer anyone from the 'responsibility' of their own gamble>if i vote red, i save myself but potentially commit to killing others>if i vote blue, i save others but potentially commit to killing myselfmaybe this would be a better discussion if we brought up the idea of idk.. the meaning of life lol?
>>43468797>>if i vote red, i save myself but potentially commit to killing othersI mean, it assumes everyone playing are just normies who want everyone else to live. Not Hollywood movie psychopaths who could stand the idea of of killing other people while everyone else sees who they voted for.But that's why due the assumptions you point out, Blue is the best option- Blue's don't expect everyone to work under the assumptions set (They expect there WOULD be fuckers and people who think differently voting red), whereas Red aren't even really thinking about what others have to vote at all if they've already decided to be 'that guy'. It's not perfect but its a better buffer to account for error, whereas 'Just vote 100% red everyone' has 0 margin for error and ensures others die and you actively have to participate in it.>I vote blue hoping no one dies, and have implicated no one but myself>I vote red hoping I don't die, and it's not not even certain that people won't dieAlso there's one other part that I've seen no one else bring upThat blue's won't fight back. Can you be 100% sure that blue voter's won't see you voted red and if they get to 50%, won't decide to kill you because they decided you're a fucker who voted against them? That they won't retaliate or want to hurt you back?
>>43468956>im a red voter>assuming that i care that blue voters die over myself who lives>assuming the deaths of blue voters are errors
its baffling to me that red pushers will argue their position is smarter when it so obviously isnt (unless they literally dont give a shit about any person other than themselves)red pushers will say "lets just convince 100% of the population to push red and nobody dies!" ok, or lets convince 100% of the population to push blue and the same exact thing happens. except in this case, if a few of those people freaked out and pushed red instead then everyone still lives.its not even a false dichotomy where pushing blue = more selfless and pushing red = smarter, its actually just blue = smarter AND more selfless, red = low situational awareness or murderously selfish
>>43466621>red button victory, all blueggers evaporate and get sent to hell>all humans left on earth are hyper individualist ubermensch (neechy spoke of this)>stupid faggot ass questions about suicidal morality are never asked again because everyone already knows the answer
>>43469564you are genuine goycattle
>>43469646>red button victory>greatest human selection in history, selecting for selfish assholes>centuries later>99% of the species is enslaved by one guy who was the best at being a selfish asshole and humans start to realize why we started working together the millisecond we got out of the trees
>>43469778red isn't selfish. there's nothing preventing everyone who wants to live from pressing red. red pushes nobody under the bus to live.
>>43469646More like all red pushers are retarded niggers who chimp out and destroy whatever is left of society because the very concept cooperation disappears from civilization altogether.Red pushers 1 day after the press:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1UQ-3UdEpw
There is a room that is nothing but a giant blender, capable of blending humans to death. You are given the choice of either entering this room, or a perfectly safe, empty room. After everyone has voted, the blender is turned on. If >50% of people choose the blender room, the blades will get jammed up and everyone who choose to get in the blender will be saved.Which room will you choose?
There is a room that is nothing but a giant blender, capable of blending humans to death. Every single human on earth is put into this blender and is given the option of either leaving this blender immediately or staying for a little bit longer. If >50% of the people inside leave the blender immediately, everyone remaining will be blended to death.Which option will you choose?
>>43468210this is actually profoundly illogical and retarded. I would push the blue button, to claim this isn't a valid choice you would have to make a convincing argument for why your values should be chosen. It can't be some retard smooth brain shit like "erm but i wanna live" because you have to justify why that's the correct option, and quite frankly that places you on the same capability of thought as any non-human animal. as well as that, pressing the red button is illogical under any framework including just actual retard lizard brain shit. do you think shit would just function fine if even 10% of the world chose blue? No, you're fucked. You're also choosing to rid yourself of anyone with good moral character so guaranteeing to live in even more of a shithole. You just doomed yourself to living in retard cuck land forever if red wins as well as it being an absurdly hard task to make anything function even half as smoothly in that scenario. if blue wins there is actually a world to live on. You can try to make a moral framework to counteract this but I think it would be just as retarded and poorly thought out as the drivel you already posted
>>43470230Is the blender turned on after everyone has been given a chance to choose? Your description is unclear.
>>43467241Selfishness is product of cruel n greedy environment, retard. Morals are not learned, you just lack empathy>>43467840>Mind of a manchildNot everyone can be a sociopathic subhuman, or want to be. Believe it or not some of us want to make the world better place for all. It is not about kindness being transactional.
>>43466621Ah, the "would you join a suicide pact to stop it from coming into effect" question.
>>43466621Ah, the "would you endanger the lives of millions of people so you individually can live" question.
I'm so sick of midwits ignoring half the question or outright changing the hypothetical because they learned a little game theory. Like omg you know what a Nash equilibrium is? Do you want a cookie? Do you want a medal?>one button says 'live' the other says 'maybe die'>one button says 'don't kill anyone' the other says 'maybe kill 4 billion people'They say both. You don't get to not choose, you don't get to opt out, you have to pick one side and step onto the scale. Lots of people will avoid the maybe die button. Lots of other people will avoid the maybe kill people button. How the question is presented will change how people respond to it. Obviously no one's jumping into the giant blender. But there is no giant blender, is there, genius? No one's scared of a little button. So there will 100% be blue pressers no matter how many times you call it irrational.You were supposed to learn theory of mind as a toddler. You have to factor other people's reasoning and values into your own reasoning. Changing the framing changes other people's reactions which changes the outcome probabilities which change the values of your two options. If you're cynical about blue's chances or don't care about other people's lives, sure, pick red. Just don't be dumb enough to think humans are rational actors who all have exactly the same values? Please?
>>43466621Red.1. I live. 2. People who put themselves first live.3. Moral narcissists and benevolent martyrs die.4. Red button NEETs who were dependent on blue button martyrs for survival die.5. All that's left are independent people who take care of their own needs.6. World is a better place.7. Sorry, blue button martyrs. Your heart was in the right place even if your brain wasn't.
>>43466621I mean this is retarded because if everyone preses red then everyone is safe, so yeah, bluetards dug their own graves. No remorse.
>>43468251>if 100% of voters choose blue no one dies eitherNo you fucking dumbass, 50% of everyone who picked blue dies even if blue wins. If red wins 100% of blue pickers die. Its an absolutely pointless risk, this is a thought experiment for detecting retards who can't into the most basic propositions of logic (you are here).
>>43467836How the ACTUAL FUCK is everyone this goddamn stupid and illiterate. If everyone presses RED nothing happens. If everyone presses blue half the fucking planet DIES, blue is the Galactus snap option you monumental cretinous mongoloids.
>>43466621why did you change it the original goes that if more then 50 percent press blue no one dies
>>43468748ironic
>>43470077That's still misstated, you retard. It's like this:There is a room that is nothing but a giant blender, capable of blending humans to death. You are given the choice of either entering this room, or a perfectly safe, empty room. After everyone has voted, the blender is turned on. If >50% of people choose the blender room, the blades will get jammed up and HALF of those who chose to get in the blender will be saved; but if <50% got in, everyone in the blender will get shredded to a pulp. Note that it is absolutely innecessary to enter the blender room, you can just not.Now pick a room.
Cis man here, tell me that the retard who came up with this scenario is a woman or a communist. It is genuinely one of the most braindead retarded fucking things I've ever read. I can't believe how much it is getting perpetuated. It reflects nothing on civic duty, nothing on moral responsibility. There is nothing about survival fitness. It tells you nothing about anything. This is genuinely one of the most repulsive thought experiments I've ever seen. The only thing this is indicative is the retard who shares it around as if it is anything resembling profound.
>>43469564pushing blue is objectively stupid and semi suicidal. why would anyone prefer it over the safe option?
>>43469646>neechy
>>43471627>>43471742>50% of everyone who picked blue dies even if blue wins.>If everyone presses blue half the fucking planet DIESdo me a favor and go read the original tweet buddy. crazy that reds have to basically start making things up and completely changing the original hypothetical to not seem like retards
Aella ran the experiment. She didn't segregate by MTF/FTM/NB status specifically, nor sexuality, but, well, girls - we're not looking good
>>43469564Lol, not only is blue not more "selfless", it is in reality more selfish. Blue is the virtue signal button for midwits like yourself who want to pat yourself on the back. That's literally the scenario, by the way >this button does nothing OR you can press this button and if everyone else also presses this button it lets you pat yourself on the backThe whole thing is incredibly retarded. It is the most soft-boiled half-baked r*ddit shit I've ever seen only much like the equally retarded "bear vs man" shit it has accidentally tapped into something at a meta level where it reveals something about the people who interact with it, in the case of the "bear vs man" it was that women are retarded and will die for arguments based off of vibes and cry about it, and in this case that there is a large subset of people who are so horrifically liberal and narcissistic that they'll die just for the chance to congratulate themselves.
>>43466621i would press red even if "i pressed red" was tattooed on my forehead for the rest of my life
>>43472124>go read some mongoloid's post on X bruh I swear it's not even the same hypothetical as in this thread1) I am absolutely not going to go on Shitter2) Who even fucking cares? In this thread respond to the hypothetical posed in this thread, not some fucking other hypothetical that was crammed up Elon Musk's ass days ago, are you actually stone cold retarded?
>>43472206I can see it, being a tranny kind of erodes your faith in humanity to have your back
Picking blue is a fucking darwin award, on some natural selection shit
>>43472206>n=89
>>43471835your post oddly explains everything i like about it, your loss anon and i say this as a blue button martyr
Lets rephrase the question in an algebraic fashionThe blue button pressers are trying to save the red pushersThe red button pushers are trying to kill the blue button pushers.Not so easy now is it?If red wins we are left with a world full of murderers. But guess whatI STILL FUCKING SLAM THAT RED BUTTON BECAUSE I FUCKING HATE BLUE BUTTONERS
>>43472797>blue button retard likes retarded non-hypothetical Big surprise>>43472875Let's rephrase the question in algebraic fashionThe blue button pressers are trying to commit suicideThe red button pressers are trying to do nothingNot so easy now is it?Reddit spacing wins!
Redfags, this is the fucking cringe type of person who votes red. This is the world you're going to be living in by pressing red.You might as well press blue because in a red world these people are going to make you choose to kill yourself anyway.
>>43473112
>>4347311299% of people push red and you, the 1% of holier than though midwits looking for self-congratulations get filtered out.
>>43472124>noooo you can't just reply to a thread, you have to go verify it on X firstlmao are you for fucking real?
>blueBottom>redTop
>>43473112Only bluefags have that problem.
Red is for people who intuitively understand the nature of realityBlue is for delusional faggots and sissies and weak willed mean who dont understand what it means to be an ISLAND
>>43473700Weak willed men*
>>43473195Wrong
>>43466621Red: kikiBlue: bouba
>>43470077Imagine a guy offers you a gun you have to forcibly shoot at anyone who didn't accept the gun.If 50% of people asked finally say no or refuse, he'll stop offering it to people and the guns given out will all disintegrate.Do you accept the gun?
>>43471013>All that's left are independent people who take care of their own needs.>World is a better place.None of the sociopaths you live alongside in the aftermath are going to pay your neetbucks or estrogen. In fact they'll have no problem murdering you for meat and obtaining your stuff.
>>43473719Id ask for two guns so i can get the job done quicker
What is the purpose of this psy op
>>43473700Wrong reaction pic. I've got you bro
>>43473736Yeah, Reds are psychotic school shooters who live by edge. We already know.
>>43473112there is literally no good reason to press blue. maybe to tr< an save the color blind? lmao
>>43473719thats a different problem though. thats not what happens with the buttons
>>43473801It is what happens, just more directly rather than abstractly. I don't know why red button voters don't connect the dots that part of their vote also includes "Other people die", whereas without their participation the blue button is otherwise harmless.
>>43473839Its not at all what happens with the buttons. For starters it is missing the 50% survival rate for blue. It misrepresents the optimal scenario
>>43466621>if you press the blue button you have a 50% of survival assuming at least 50% of the world picks blueI dont get it, im retarded. So if at least 50% press blue, I still get only a 50% survival rate? So even if everybody is blue half of the world dies?
>>43473919OP is a retard
>>43466621i'm autistic so maybe i'm not understanding this correctly, but, if everyone in the world picked blue, half of the global population will die, because it says a 50% chance of survival. if everyone in the world picks red, everyone survives because it's 100%, am i getting that right? that's not even a question, obviously everyone should pick red, that's the most logical choice, not only for your own survival, but everyone elses.
red pressers don't constitute the survival of the species, only the survival of the self.two sides of the same coin where one end is narcissism and one is altruism. evil is considered being selfish and good is considered being selfless.the question was, what percentage of the world is evil? would you die for their sins?and i'm just like:https://youtu.be/0aCJJkR2BvI
>>43474079Cry about it bluefag.
>>43474079how are they selfish? everybody pressing red is the only scenario where everybody survives. pressing blue is sabotaging humanity
>>43474120except that's not true. the prompt literally says only if the majority presses blue does everyone survive.red only ensures your survival, not everyones.pressing red is like dodging the draft.
I think its rather interesting that we have essentially danced our way around to realizing, at least i have, that suicide and murder are the exact same thing.A suicide is driven by outside factors and outside factors are influenced by outside actors, we act on factors that cause suicidal people to kil themselves. Killing and suicide are the same.
>>43474079The problem is most of the world is evil and this question is being asked in rich happy countries on twitter. You know nobody in a shithole in a life or death situation is gonna trust their neighbors.
im pressing blue because i want to die without being blamed for my suicide :)
>>43474131Draftdodging is good though
blue pressers base their entire argument on the assertion that most people are retarded and then claim they have the moral high ground lol
>>43474131it says that 50% survive IF the majority presses blue. pressing red on the other hand guarantees survival. it is straight forward, no bullshit. everybody just press red
>>43474209other blue pressers will sabotage your suicidal decision
>>43473839>>43473719Why wouldn't you accept the gun? Who could possibly be stupid enough to not accept the gun? A man is telling you that you can take a gun and do nothing or not take a gun and get shot at unless for whatever reason 50% of people chose to arbitrarily not take the gun. This is what you bluefags don't seem to understand, this isn't the prisoner's dilemma, this isn't a good thought experiment, there is literally 0 (zero) reason for anyone to press the blue button. And in fact it exposes the selfishness of the bluefaggotry, they they want to put the lives of people at risk to virtue signal.>>43473740Like the "bear vs man" thing social media loves this sort of absolutely dogshit hypothetical where women and other bottoms can give a retarded answer and pretend it is deep. >>43474262It literally comes down to narcissism and savior complex. I've almost come around to believing that the hypothetical is secretly genius in that it reveals the absolute lack of critical thinking skills a lot of people have. It really is indicative of why society is the way it is.
>>43474262>you can't trust everyone to save their own lives but you can trust at least 50% of people to save everyone'sIt truly is the most goylent take I've ever seen
>>43466621This is just a fake prisoner's dilemma. The way the question is worded makes it sound like cooperation and picking the worse option will overall result in a better outcome, but there is no disadvantage for just pressing red. I think the true purpose behind that question is not whether to see if people are "good & cooperative" or "selfish & evil", but instead if people can be fooled by framing.If you framed the question just a little bit differently, then red would win such an overwhelming majority that picking blue is suicidal.
>>43474484blue is already dumb and suicidal. I still dont get what the catch is supposed to be here. Its like "what would you rather get: a million dollars or aids?" why would anybody choose blue?
>>43473919>>43474058I get the feeling OP fuckep up the premise completely here. Because yes, this doesnt make any sense
>there is a gun on the table, and you have two options>option 1: leave and do nothing>option 2: shoot yourself, and if a majority of the other people given this choice ALSO shoot themselves, you will all liveJust push red! Nobody needs to take a risk! I am asking sincerely: why would you ever press blue? I do not understand. Is it just the same as people who like to go skydiving or spelunking in those death caves—i.e., risk-taking / thrill-seeking behavior? I’m not risking my life so other people can get an adrenaline high.
>>43474549Why did fags and trannies rally for refugees who want to throw them from buildings? It's just liberalism. People who want to ignore reality to pat themselves on the back for doing nothing only to shoot themselves in the foot. Really it is no surprise that these are the same people who perpetuate fascistic ideas of "not tolerating intolerance" given that the ultimate blue fantasy is that they """save""" all of the people who retardedly picked blue, taking away their ability to choose to do what is best for them.
>>43473870>If 50% of people asked finally say no or refuse, he'll stop offering it to people and the guns given out will all disintegrate.
A better hypothetical would be >Blue button: everyone who pushes it dies UNLESS at least 50% of people push it>Red button: everyone who pushes it lives BUT if 80% of people press it it is no longer availableThe current hypothetical provides no drawback and therefore literally 0 reason to press the blue button instead of the red button unless you are borderline vegetable levels of retarded.
>>43474454>A man is telling you that you can take a gun and do nothingBut it's not "Do nothing." That's the point.Red button pressers think it's the "Do nothing" option but don't realize the people who will be shooting those who refused, will be them. There's no suicide option with blue unless the other element, red/gun accepters choose that option.It's a bizarre paradox because if everyone has the consensus of entirely one choice everyone would survive and be unhurt, but because people cannot agree to participate on that goal it's the divergence of choice that fucks everything up. If 0 people press the red button, no one dies. If 0 people press the blue button, nobody voted that they should die so no one dies. There's no reason to press either and both both buttons present a false dilemma where one is safe when both contribute to murder in a way.The prompt is manipulative in a way.>virtue signal>Suicidal EmpathyThe thing I find funny tho is everyone who says red are acting like blue buttoners are just some bizarre subculture or have some anterior motive. I've heard countless times the accusation "Blue voters are lying, no one if pressed to the gun would actually vote blue. They must be like me and in reality wouldn't stand by it at all." which comes off as deluded and narcissistic to me.
>>43474465>Hahaha Jews epic over 9000 aren't I a winrar XD!This is your level of thinking on red buttoning.
>>43466621The most logical option is to hit blue ensuring everyone will live. Even if the red button pushers all live, they ultimately seal their fate because those who were rational enough to push blue are now all dead. Red button leads to a shit situation 9/10.
>>43474549See>>43473719>Accept gun and shoot people >Do nothingWhy would anyone sincerely accept the gun instead of just refusing and walking away? You would have to be retarded, if literally no one accepts then obviously no one will get shot. You'd have to be a moron to accept 'Yes I want to kill other people instead of doing nothing'.I think both buttons present a similar dilemma and people haven't really thought through how similar they are, but their cognitive dissonance has them reasoning it from opposite sides of the same coin.
>>43474730Even better>if atleast 80% of people press it, than cancels out and no longer works, I.e. everyone who pressed red dies
>>43474454>Why wouldn't you accept the gun?They don't want to shoot people, and aren't autistic enough to believe others in the future will never at any chance choose a different option than them, understanding human nature and the unpredictable uncertainty of reality means they cannot depend on no one refusing the gun.
>>43474756No. This is an invention of the cattle brain of the bluefaggot. Essentially you're told that you can either not participate (red) or that you can participate and if 50% of people simply choose not to participate then you die (blue). You're the retard choosing to participate. It's funny how you have to invent this narrative about a gun and red pulling the trigger to try and sell your retardation. >I've heard countless times the accusation "Blue voters are lyingI never said that. I truly believe that there are in fact people out there like yourself who are so truly retarded that they'd choose to participate in the coinflip instead of not because you've been sold an idea that you are virtuous for doing so, and I think it'd be a netgain if you did.>>43474821>hehe silly red don't you see, you can't depend on people to not choose wrong so you have to choose wrong and die with them I think the biggest argument for red is just seeing the subhuman thought processes of the blue mind.>>43474800No because then that would just be a modified prisoner's dilemma. The point of this version is that pick red ensures your survival with a guaranteed cost of other people's lives whereas blue risks your life in the hope that enough people also pick blue to save everyone.
>>43466621is there a limit on how many times i can press red
>>43474894Kek
>>43474862Are you actually mentally impaired? Do you have this bad reading comprehension? There is no 'I didn't participate', the only reason anyone (blue) is in any danger is because the other side votes against their interest. >all those who pressed blue will die if more than 50% pick red>if more than 50% pick red>pick redStop being a fucking retarded cunt and think for 5 seconds. Like if you're actually this dumb that you don't understand cause-and-effect than I'm amazed you haven't choked on your own vomit and forgotten to breathe by now.
>>43475138The only reason that red is in danger of putting someone in danger is because the other side voted against their interests. I picked the button that does nothing, you picked the button that kills you if 50% of people are also retarded enough to participate. Enjoy your death retard.
>>43466889so that implies you can technically pick a button then press another one?
who is to say if blue wins the majority they don't kill off all the red voters of their own volition? in terms of the rules of the game you're safe, but after your vote is exposed to the blue voters they decide to kill you off for not being a net positive to society?
what if red cheats to ensure blue doesn't win?
