what are the political implications of not having to concern yourself with living or dying by just choosing the Red Button? bluefags not allowed in this thread
>>533842770kek
>>533842973Kys poo.
>>533843021retardo
red button give gibs?
>>533843401no it comes from this hypothetical
>>533843450idk sounds like red button is fake and gay
>>533843748red guarantees survival by pressing blue you are opting into possible death
>>533842770Nice I was getting really tired of reading that retarded kraut's drivel. Finally, just like what was prophesized by the ancient sages on x, the blue pushers are gone. Long live the red pushers! Long live those who do not commit suicide!
My personal vote is statistically insignificant vs 10 billion others, so I choose red just to make sure I survive.
>>533843450I'm not pressing either fucking button.
>>533843806>by pressing blue you are opting into possible deathyes, but you are signalling what a heckin great person you are so that everybody can say thank you.
>>533843914you must choose anon
>>533842770This is the kind of problem that's only fun to consider in theory. In the real world Africa, India and China will overwhelmingly press red after which point it's not gonna matter what the rest of the world thinks - it's press red or die.
>>533842770>what are the political implications of not having to concern yourself with living or dying by just choosing the Red Button?
>>533843914The hypothetical says you have to press one. If you don't want to discuss this hypothetical you are free to leave.
the cattle press blue and gamble their breathchoosing the herd in a lottery of deathbut red is the sovereign, the rational mindshedding the weak and the witless behindno apologies given, no martyrs to mournfrom the ashes of blue, a new world is born
>>533844040this 1000x you think rashjeet guptaraka or any of his 1500 cousins from the slums of mumbai are picking blue?
>>533843450>Tim UrbanGuy is a heckin The Science believer. Sage
>>533844040>>533844139they wouldnt even be able to comprehend the exercise
>>533843921Yes, blue responses are virtual signalling by retards who can't re-frame the options, when in fact, by picking blue, they are needlessly gambling with life.>If everyone pushes the red button, everyone survives. >If anyone pushes the blue button, someone dies.Playing the game to begin with though is the actual moral fault, as whoever the fuck is going to kill people over button selection deserves full credit for killing whoever gets killed.
>>533842770It's just a version of that steal or share game. Pressing red and telling everyone your pressing red, is the most logical move.
>>533844040blacks are literally STILL wearing masks because blue pickers convinced them covid was scary and they might kill their grandmathey won't be pushing red
>>533844243Honestly I don't know if the very low IQ would pick RED=not dieorBLUE=family&friends not dieI expect 100% of the 95-115IQ people to overwhelmingly pick BLUE and the >115IQ to overwhelmingly pick RED
>>533842770If you press red you WILL survive.If you press blue you MAY survive.What button do YOU press?
>>533844279I thought they do that to hide their monkey faces from the rest of society, personally my day gets better every time I see one of those moon crickets hiding 60% of their disfigured primate shaped brown faces
>>533842770"Heh, you should have pressed the red button, nigger... Bob! Bob, don't go in after him! BOB! Oh jesus, Bob..."
>>533844279American house niggers, the minority of niggers worldwide, are wearing masks. I doubt the wildeebeasts of Senegal and the cannibals of Liberia will press blue because UN tells them too.
>>533842770This is a scenario where death can only happen if people press blue. People would actually die because of virtue signaling lol. Which already happens. Interesting thought experiment it's a good filter.
>>533843248>pic rel. >red"chad"
Let's collect facts:* We know there are people who will end up pressing blue. Call them retared or illogical, this doesn't change the situation* The event "everybody presses red" will hence not happen* Therefore, any argument along the lines of "IF everybody presses red" is not worth having. It's not an argument.Further,* If >50% vote blue, nobody dies.* If >50% vote red, people die.The blue outcome is the better one.The red outcome is in fact super bad. If >10% of people die at once, the world will turn to shit, things stop working in the short term, and the process will have selected for the more psychopathic people.Red winning hits infrastructure and wellbeing of people, or even barbarian warlord rule scenarios, takes such a hit that it's worse than now, no matter how bad it is now. A world that selected for the more psycho leaning ones. We don't need to make an argument from empathy to realize that selecting against emphatic people is harsher. Even if our world is shit, this is easier shittier.Now if you are really really scared of dying, of course you got for red.If you really think blue winning is almost ruled out, due to selfishness or whatever, then red is also better.Then there's Chud arguments that argue "oy, the stupid should die". Okay that's a position, fair, not really worth debating. I'm not making an argument from morals or empathy, but from cost.In the end, unless you're super scared of the process of your death, or if you have 0 credence in blue having a chance to win, and if you're not an edge Chud, then voting blue is more reasonable. The red win is just too bad of an outcome.tl;dr the my main point of mine is really the first. Any "IF everybody voted red" talking point is superflous, since everybody agrees that there will be blue voters (and unless you take the Chud possition, which I don't fully reject either to be sure, then people dying is too big of a cost.)
>>533844269Reframing the option doesn't change the options. If 51% of people pick red, 49% die. If 51% pick blue, no one dies. Picking blue is the weighted choice if your priority is that no one dies. Picking red is more likely to kill more people, but you will never die. It's not that complicated, but red pickers here prefer so strongly that they do not die that they can't actually engage with the question honestly. They have to invert the problem and frame it as a personal failing of blue pickers -- that people are too stupid to frame the choice as personal. It's a clever inversion, but inverting it doesn't establish the inversion as fact. It just predisposes people to looking at the issue selfishly.
>>533844279Asians are also super collectivist, so they won't be pressing red either.
>>533844399>BLUE=family&friends not die>115IQ to overwhelmingly pick REDWhat if all my family (that I care about) and friends are >115IQ? So then can I pick red and still claim I care about family and friends?
>>533844715It's not an IQ test. It's a test of whether you are willing to allow the deaths of others such that you might win. I have an IQ of 147. I'm a blue picker. The question is not just whether or not you can invert P -> Q.
>>533844269>>If everyone pushes the red button, everyone survives. and if I had a billion dollars I'd be rich. >>If anyone pushes the blue button, someone dies.What you mean to say is if half of every one manages to push the "kill no one" button as opposed to the "kill some one but not me because I'm a coward" button, every one lives.
>>533844661>if 51% pick red, 49% of people die>if 55% pick red, 45% of people die>if 60% pick red, 40% of people die>if 75% pick red, 25% of people die>if 90% pick red, 10% of people die>if 95% pick red, 5% of people die>if 99% pick red, 1% of people die>if 100% pick red, 0% of people dieSo you're making a great argument here encouraging people pick red. The more people who pick red, the fewer people die. In fact by picking blue, you're INCREASING the number who will die. Absolutely shameful.
>>533844854The buttons are not that. They are "maybe kill people that won't press this button" and "maybe kill people that will press this button".
>>533844843>I'm a blue picker.With brown skin, stands to reason.
The "what if" scenario is also intrinsically biased and cowardly. People are guaranteed to pick blue. This is a fact. Are you going to press the button that kills them and saves yourself or are you going to press the button that helps save them, at risk of your self?
>>533844642>I'm not making an argument from morals or empathy, but from cost.Having less stupid people in the world is better for the world, despite any short term struggles.Properly articulate this dilemma to the blacks and browns of the world, and I promise you red is going to win anyway, so you might as well not kill yourself for African niggers and muslims who would love all the nice white people to conveniently kill themselves.
>>533844661I feel the only reasonable option to pick blue is via emotional manipulation Otherwise it's entirely logical to pick red
>>533845107Like, it FEELS right. It's clearly not after a little thought. But that's the trick, right?
>>533844960>if 51% pick blue, 0 people die>if 55% pick blue, 0 people die>if 60% pick blue, 0 people die>if 75% pick blue, 0 people die>if 90% pick blue, 0 people die>if 95% pick blue, 0 people die>if 99% pick blue, 0 people die
>>533844399>I expect 100% of the 95-115IQ people to overwhelmingly pick BLUE and the >115IQ to overwhelmingly pick RED
>>533844661>Reframing the option doesn't change the options.Agreed, and I never claimed so. You are incorrect in your analysis as well. The most selfless choice, regardless of person will to survive, is the red button, as it is the only button that can guarantee no deaths. The blue button is retard bait. There is no rational reason to push the blue button, as all it can do is ensure some amount of people have the chance to die. If you pretend the blue button does not exist, nobody can die.
>>533845028The simple act of pressing the blue button makes it more likely that the other people who also pressed the blue button survive though. So there is no instance where the blue button = "maybe kill people that will press this button". Unless you're factoring yourself into the equation but that's retarded since on the scale of outcomes, you don't offset anything with your inclusion. If you pick blue that's one more potential death, but also one more vote that no one dies. If you pick red that's one less potential death, but also one more vote that every one else dies.
>>533845107>>533845202It's not logical. It doesn't reduce to logic. It reduces to a value judgment: are you willing to die such that potentially billions of others don't?
>>533844661The max death tolls from convincing people to vote red or convincing people to vote blue are exactly the same. It's 49%. You're only choosing if you and the people you've convinced are gonna be included.
>>533845246A world without midwits....Finally....Peace....
>>533845232So you're showing me a table that had no increasing incentive structure to pick blue. You did understand that, correct? As a button presser, where is the incentive to push blue if I think the number is already over 50%. If I believe there are MORE than 50% of blue button pushers, than I must push red. That's the most logical move. There's no incentive to push blue.However, inversely, if I think it's over 50% red well then I'm still ALSO incentivised to push red. Are you really this ignorant?
>>533845288You can press the button to potentially save billions of others at the cost of your own life. You can act to save the people who pressed the button. You're still framing the issue dishonestly.
>People start pressing buttons>Guy pushes red>Girl pushes red>Guy pushes redalright looking good so far, nobody is going to die>retard presses blueokay now death is on the table, when it wasn't before.red=no dieblue=maybe die, but choosing this option might make people in real life like you more so people are going to say it. Obviously the scenario won't happen, so you say "blue" for the social brownie points and "red" if you aren't a herd following faggot.
>>533845288It's magic, how the redtard inverts reality so effortlessly. >he most selfless choice, regardless of person will to survive, is the red button, as it is the only button that can guarantee no deaths. To the brain of the red, the only button that could possibly be selfless is also the only button that would kill people who didn't press it. Meanwhile, you admit that people you consider to be retarded deserve to be killed. What makes them retarded? Not wanting to kill others. You want to kill people who don't want to kill others. And you think this is the selfless option. All you have to do is not press the red kill button and every one lives. It's not even comparable. It's literally twice as easy to press the blue button and kill no one than it is to press the red button and kill no one. You're going out of your way to chose the more difficult option just so that there can be a chance that some one will die. Fascinating.
>>533845346>It doesn't reduce to logicIt does, people are just not logical. If they were, nobody would even consider pushing the blue button.The blue button creates the chance of death.The red button can only cause death because the blue button exists.There is a choice between buttons.Remove blue button as a choice and red button becomes harmless.Blue button is logically eliminated as a choice, as red is harmless without it.
>>533845561>you admit that people you consider to be retarded deserve to be killed.The fuck I did. I don't want anyone to be killed, so I press the red button. Blue button pushers, if any are silly enough to do it, are gambling with life, as the blue button is the only way to ensure someone potentially dies from the selection.
>>533845457I'm not saying that the incentives line up. I'm not making that argument at all. In fact, it is locally rational (i.e. rational for the individual) in a vacuum to press the red button. You will 100% survive. The question is whether that locally rational decision is worth what is likely globally irrational. Unknown numbers of others will die. There are logistical problems with this approach, as >>533844642 suggests, but that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm just trying to get people to frame the question honestly and without copes. I'm trying to get people to acknowledge that they are making the strictly locally-rational decision while making what could be a globally irrational (and potentially unethical) decision.
>>533845567>The red button can only cause death because the blue button exists.Fire is cold, water is dry. If the red button didn't exist, no one could die. The blue button cannot cause death under any circumstances. Only pressing the red button in sufficient numbers can.
>>533845567You're smuggling in the presupposition that acting locally-rationally is a priori logical. That's a valid stance, but it's being smuggled in regardless. It's assuming the conclusion.
>>533845561>What makes them retarded? Not wanting to kill others. You want to kill people who don't want to kill others.What makes them retarded is introducing death into a scenario where it can easily be avoided by thinking about the problem for 5 seconds.
>>533845511Your 1 vote will not change anything. Anyone you convinced to press red will live, you've saved them. Anyone you convinced to press blue might die - because of you. Would you tell your kids to press blue? Your parents, your friends? It's easy to put your own life on the line, but would you have the gall to tell others to do the same? And the most you can convince are your own countrymen. You have no control over how the rest of the world will vote. You think Kim, or Xi, or Modi, or the oil sheiks won't force their populace to press red just on the off-chance the whole thing is an American ploy to kill people that will press blue?
>>533845650>if you're silly you should be killedt. redfagJust admit you wanted to press the button that would kill people. You want people to die, so you pressed the only button that would cause people to die. If every one pressed the blue button every one lives. If only half of every one pressed the blue button, every one still lives. It's only if there are enough red button pushers that half of every one dies. You want death.
>>533845784My one vote makes the outcome one eight-billionth more likely, to be more precise. I know what I believe in and I know which decision coheres with my values. Either way, I ultimately just wouldn't want to live in a world in which only red pressers are left, anyway. We're already basically there, but I wouldn't want to live in it regardless.
>>533845784Can you be sure that there exists not a single compulsive contrarian? Can you be sure that every one will believe you with 100% sincerity? If you are perfectly persuasive and every one else is capable of perfect compliance every one lives. In a perfect world. If you are imperfectly persuasive and people are imperfectly compliant, some one dies. You actively chose to advocate for the only option that would result in people dying, if it won the majority.
>>533845700>The blue button cannot cause death under any circumstances.If only one person pushes the blue button, they die, because they pushed the blue button. (They actually die because some psychopath made them play the game)
>>533845822>I'm such a good person>I'm such a good person>I'm such a good person>Thinking is for psychopaths>The majority of the planet will think like me, and act selflessly>I'm smart...
>>533842770basically christianity is a jewish time bomb
>>533844085>nooo u have to choose !And they did. They chose not to participate. Now what? Do they die along with the blue?
>>533845931You can improve the chances of survival of your loved ones by 100% or by 0,000000000125%. You've made my point without even realizing it.
>>533845931Why not just kill yourself now then, and everybody who thinks like you, and let the niggers have the planet lol
>>533846013>Only a minority of the planet would chose to save every one at the potential cost of their own well being>Lets kill them!The blue option is the only winning option. The red option leaves you in a world not worth living in, if we were to even entertain the idea of a red majority.
>>533845822I hope you are enjoying shadowboxing with words I've never said. If it makes you feel like you are winning, please continue. I only want the best for you.
>>533843021>Kys"Press blue" is the new kys
>>533846147Did you quote the wrong post? Play ball or get off the court.
>>533846199>I only want the best for you.>*presses the button that kills me*hahahahhaha ooyyy veeeey
>>533846213Noted and corrected.>>533842973Press blue, poo.
>>533846155Yes, I'm choosing the locally irrational choice in favor of my political thesis. If you think about it for a second, it's just about the only way the world can be improved for the better. That's what this entire allegory is about, anyway: do we prioritize ourselves alone until the world's completely purged of the kind of cooperation on which literally all society is predicated? Or do we take a chance, risk our lives, and hope for a more peaceful and cooperative world?I believe strongly in my politics. I believe that an overall cooperative world is the only one worth living in. I'm willing to die for it.
>>533846193>The red option leaves you in a world not worth living inI'm just telling you, red WOULD win if this problem was properly explained to the third worlders. They would view it in a very simple way. Red=live blue=die.You're pretty much saying you don't want to live in a world that already exists. So just kill yourself now?
>>533842770What if you'd rather us all suffer or die than be stuck in clown world
>>533845822Lets make this a practical example:Red button = you don't allow mass immigration. Because you know that, rationally, mass immigration will ruin your society and make it as bad as the shithole where the immigrants came from. Whatever ability you do have to help these people is lost with this decision. Blue button = you saw some dead nigger floating around in the ocean and now you emotional response it to allow mass immigration. You will make this decision despite there being a very high likelihood of your children and grandchildren suffering for it in the future, potentially even leading you to get robbed and killed by an immigrant. It's not egoism vs altruism that's the dilemma. It's rationality and paternity vs empathy and maternity. The red button is how you should run a society. The blue button is how you should mother your children.
>>533846191Because I want a better world for all of us.
>>533846458So do I...
>>533846345"properly explained" "Red=live blue=die." Yes, if you lied to third worlders you'd get the outcome you wanted. I don't dispute this. >So just kill yourself now?If you want me to die redder you'll have to kill me yourself.
>>533845668>I'm not making that argument at allNot intentionally...but you unwittingly absolutely are.Others have far more cogently made the argument for pushing the blue button. I disagree with them, but respect their positions and arguments. You on right other hand, have literally laid the foundation as to why one indeed should press the red button, you've refuted nothing. That's the point I'm making here. You, admittedly unwittingly, provided the very structure that showered it's not in anyone's best interest to pick blue regardless of which way they think the "collective" will go. And to your credit, or lack thereof, you did an impeccable job at it. I think you laid out the merits of picking red over blue better than half the people here actually advocating for that position.The framing of the question has never been the issue and your inability to articulate and argue that point is the proof. So you're fine to argue that, this isn't about logic and its instead about some mortality. You're even free to argue that it's an argument about the societal collective and how such a move could negatively impact society with the morons dying off. I don't buy it personally, but it's an argument. However, your position that reframing the question, while maintaining the facts is somehow a dishonest endeavor, was a load of crap and I pushed back against your idiotic and nonsensical framing. So again, feel free to make a better argument as to the societal benefit of pushing the blue button. However, if you're going to claim the question at hand was being disingenuously reframed, then you need to do a much better job of supporting it. Because again, you ultimately laid out one of the better structures of support for the red button than many in that camp.
>>533846490How do you expect it to ever come about if you press the red button every time you're asked to choose?
>>533846336>Or do we take a chance, risk our lives, and hope for a more peaceful and cooperative world?You do realize that we already live in the outcome world where blue wins? The world is a living nightmare. The only option is red.
>>533846542>your idiotic and nonsensical framingThe set of things which don't make sense to you is not a superset of all things which make no sense at all. Which part did you not understand, exactly?
>>533846543Maybe the world will be a better place when there are less people gambling their lives away? I mean, maybe the world can do without anyone dumb enough to push the button that might kill you, willingly.
>>533846408That's a retarded fucking example. Mass immigration cannot save every one. And choosing No Mass immigration also doesn't necessitate killing every woman who thinks mass immigration is a good idea because it tingles their maternal instinct. Just go back to inverting reality, at least you were better at that.
>>533846513He said that the third worlders would see it that way if explained properly. He did not claim that's how he would explain it. Blue pushers and their double digits...
>>533842770LMAOBLUES CAN DIE
>>533846513>If you want me to dieI mean you already said you'd kill yourself if you lived in a world that is pretty much the one we currently live in, but with less retards suffering from suicidal empathy.>Yes, if you lied to third worlders you'd get the outcome you wanted.okay, can I die pressing red?nocan I die pressing blue?yesblue is a retard filter.
>>533846698I'll dumb it down for you.I presented a structure showing how picking the red button would lesson the number who would die.You attempted to refute this by resounding with your own table that showed no incentive to push the blue button.So either you made that response out of a lack of understanding or you thought that was an incentive structure? Because again, you responding to a point about how more people pushing the red button increased lives saved.Granted you didn't seem to understand that simple point then, foolish to think you'll understand it now. Instead let me ask you a simpler question that you hopefully can follow:If you believe that 51% are going to press red, what button did you press? I think even you can answer that.
>>533846606I find it a very hard sell, the idea that the biggest problem with the world right now is insufficient selfishness. I just don't think the evidence bears out that conclusion.
>>533846761See you're already getting emotional. I'm not gonna bother to explain it again because it is clearly not for you, but lets introduce some consequentialism...Lets say this button pressing thing wasn't an isolated event but a recurring event every 4 years. Every 4 years people were given a choice to press the red button or the blue button.Which button should you push?
Im not making an accout, but can someone press red for me? Ok, thanks.
>>533847056No, the biggest problem with the world right now is blue pushers.
>>533847045See:>>533845668>In fact, it is locally rational (i.e. rational for the individual) in a vacuum to press the red button. You will 100% survive. The question is whether that locally rational decision is worth what is likely globally irrational.Like I said, pressing red is locally rational. Maybe the locally rational decision is what you prefer. That's totally valid. My point here is that saying it is THE most rational decision is predicated on smuggling in the a priori belief that what is locally rational is, itself, the only scope. I'm framing this as selfishness -- the prioritization of locally rational goals over what may be globally irrational and/or locally unethical. Does that make more sense?
>>533846924>I mean you already said you'd kill yourself if you lived in a world that is pretty much the one we currently live in, but with less retards suffering from suicidal empathy.I said it wouldn't be a world worth living it. It also wouldn't be a stable world, it would be a world of chaos and disorder, I would not kill myself because once the redtards ruin everything I could just help rebuild. Of course, in this scenario I'd be dead, so its a moot point. >blue is a retard filterBy your own example red explicitly allows retards. LMAO
>>533843248Nah because after the blue cucks are all gone the red chads are gonna just let the poos die of starvation.
>>533847061Blue. Blue is literally the only perfect button. Every time this occurs there's a chance that some one won't press red. So long as the majority of people press blue, it won't matter and no one dies.
>>533847277The poos are blue so the problem would already be solved
With billions of votes the chance that your vote will have an Impact on the result in basically 0. Since I suppose you can't plan ahead and the vote is secret, you will basically choose between voting blue (n_blue votes go up by +1 so no change at all in the result with n this big) and voting red (you ensure your survival). Being able to do propaganda would change things and maybe you could make a case for blue, but in a closed system in which only your vote is in your control you won't change the ultimate outcome, so it's retarded to vote Blue.
>>533847270Yet again...I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you.If you believe (you don't know four certain, just believe) that more than 50% of people age pressing red. What button do you press. Red or Blue.Can you even answer that?
>>533847387>Poos are blueYou don't want this, if the poos are blue then reds will never win.
>>533845511>You're still framing the issue dishonestly.I am not.The blue button is the only way to potentially have anybody die. It is a needless gamble, and an unethical one as well, as it lays blame on the red, those who did not want to gamble with life, should it not reach the majority threshold. I will concede mathematically though, red needs 100% for no deaths, while blue only needs 50% for no deaths, but that does not persuade me to push the blue button and its chance of death for any.
>>533847373You do realize that given that scenario, it is inevitable that blue eventually loses 51% to 49% and half the world would die?
>>533847494For what reason do you suppose the proportion of red voters would increase over time? If all you have to do is vote blue and a precedent exists, what possibly reason could you have to vote red other than to some day kill half the world?
>>533847436The locally rational decision is to press red. If you subscribe to the a priori belief that what is locally rational is the only scope in which rationality matters, pressing red is the rational decision. In other words, if you believe what's best for you alone is what's rational, then yes, press red. We're going in circles here. You don't want to acknowledge my point, and I get it. You are trying very hard to smuggle in that prior. I'm not gonna let you do that, unfortunately.
Is it safe to assume that all blue pushers are vaxxed?
>>533847609A strong correlation is to be expected.
>>533847609Covid isn't real. We're presuming for this hypothetical that the button is.
>>533847373But now you're in a repeated prisoner's dilemma. Every 4 years there will likely be more and more red button pushers. Your society is converging to "suicide button" empathetic society whereas mine converges to a society built on rational decision and individual responsibility. Every 4 years you will be in a life and death situation based on your suicidal empathy. Meanwhile I will thrive in my rational. Your society is defect and rewarding defect rationale, while mine is culling hysteria and suicidal empathy...Which society do you think will survive? Mine or yours?
>>533847572>For what reason do you suppose the proportion of red voters would increase over time?Risktaking? Boredom? Tiktok trends? The ever deteriorating quality of life? Jews conspiring to kill off half the goyim? Probably a few others but that's all I have now.
>>533847710COVID isn't real, but the vax and the retards who took it are.
>>533843450what the hell kind of question is that? why would anyone press the blue button other than for shits and giggles?
Streetshitter thread.
>>533847728>Every 4 years there will likely be more and more red button pushersYou still haven't established why this would be. In fact with repeated samples you're presuming a blue precedent. other wise only red pushers exist which makes repetition pointless because they'd keep voting red. For the sake of your argument a primary blue victory is necessary. At that point it's already established that you can just vote blue and no one will die. This actually harms your point because the only logical reason you'd have to vote red is to kill people.
>>533847450Sad fact of life, but its true, lets just hope the designated street is busy today
>>533847275you have different kinds of retards. The African nigger retards would be red pushers (much higher population), but suicidal retards like you are blue pushers (lower population).The niggers would actually be making a smarter decision in this scenario than you would be.You're the kind of retard who thinks they can reason with niggers who would kill you on suspicion that you have gold in your skull, and would gladly die on their behalf.>By your own example red explicitly allows retards.red allows retards and high IQ people.Let me ask you this, do you think the majority of the world is stupid?And if so, do you think red pushers are stupid? If so, then blue is literally just a suicide button.Red pushers are either retarded or high IQ. Blue pushers are either retarded or midwits.
>>533847875why push blue at all if you might die? that's dumb. just hit red.
>>533847578No that wasn't my point. But we already established it. My point was your initial critique was nonsensical. I'm not arguing this new nebulous point you've pivoted too. Sure, there's some net good to pushing blue, yada yada. It's been argued more eloquently already. I told you clearly what I took exemption with, not the logic, but the concept the reframing the logic was somehow malevolent or unfair. That was your core contention and now you've pivoted to this fallback on the merits of keeping the moron class alive. Cool.
>>533847966Pushing red no matter the outcome means you live pushing red has a 100% survival rate.
>>533847745In the end, if the situation would end up repeating itself we would have no choice but to shoot redniggers. Since you're cowards most of you will start pushing blue. In the end it turns into red kills 50% of all people or blue kills 50% of all red pushers. I don't know what that works out to mathematically but lets just say for arguments sake that 25% of people are red pushers, so it's either kill 50% of all people or kill 12.5% of all people. I'd rather kill 12.5% than 50%
>>533847954The majority of people in the world are very obviously mid wits, retard. That either makes me a mid wit or it makes me high IQ for recognizing this, you can pick whichever you like.
>>533847875>You still haven't established why this would be.I already told you, it's a repeated prisoner's dilemma. Even if blue wins a landslide 60% there's still 40% red that almost killed them. And you're deflecting and not answering the question. Which society do you think would survive? My proposition is that a society with red, rational button pushers that cull suicidally empathetic blue button pushers is the superior society and how OUR societies were built.
>>533845511the god of this world (Satan) comes down and introduces a machine to everyone. It has two buttons on it, press red to live, press blue to die, everyone must press one of the buttons. There is also one small clause. If over half the world chooses to die he will force them to live anyways, as a joke, a punishment on the world for desiring to leave his domain. But again that's only if half the world chooses to press the blue button. They can still choose to suck on a shotgun afterwards so it doesn't change anything. In actuality there's no chance half the world will choose to die then and there, so it is as simple as press red to live, press blue to die.
>>533848129>In the end, if the situation would end up repeating itself we would have no choice but to shoot redniggers.Or... you know... red button pushers could just keep pushing the red button until they've culled all blue buttoners...
Plot twist, they logged the names of everyone who pushed the red button and now a death squad is on the way to kill them. Have a nice day
You press red for survival.I press red to cull the blue pressers.We are not the same.
>>533848227>I'm high IQ for literally risking death for niggersYou're a midwit who would commit suicide.
>>533848270If red wins only red minded peoplelive, means thats means coming tosimilar conclusions moreoften, less conflict. If Blue wins youll never know who pushed red, and even if it was logged then blue should just accept a person pushed ted and movedon, because bkue has already shown they dont want conflict. Why push blue at all if you if you cant accept someone whopushed red?
>>533848129Are you going to continue the button pushing charade even after you proved it pointless by going around it to directly kill your enemies?
>>533848270>I already told you it just magically increases for no reasonThe only reason red voters exist is because of their selfish cowardice. If the blue voters are able to demonstrate through precedent that they'll be safe voting blue, they'll vote blue to fit in on successive rounds or at the very least they'll vote blue to turn 60% into 70% knowing that there's no blue voter that would go red, only reds that would go blue. reds are selfish niggers, your question is redundant go look at current selfish niggers if you're so interested in how your society will look.
>>533842770Many people will press the blue button no matter what so we HAVE to save them.
>>53384853750 is a bigger number than 12.5 anon. It's just like how 100 is a bigger number than 50.
>>533842770Red id get
>>533843450So you survive if you pick red regardless of results?So wtf is the point of even risking blue?Dumb ass nigger question
>>533848637>so we HAVE to save themno we don'tblue button fags are the reason western countries are flooded with niggers and other various browns.
>>533848783Thats jews and good third option would be a green button that eliminates just the jews
>>533847819Virtue signaling. This is a good hypothetical because the correct moral choice is to push red, because everyone pushing red has no downside for anyone, but some people just have to see themselves as the self sacrificing type and will literally risk their life to feel good with out even getting any possible benefit.Its not like the prisoners dilemma where everyone cooperating has some net gain. Its literally push red to not die and do nothing bad to anyone vs push blue to risk death.Another way to look at it. If everyone pushes either button everyone is fine, why unnecessarily risk peoples lives by insisting anyone should be pushing blue?
>>533848484>If red wins only red minded people>live, means thats means coming to>similar conclusions more>often, less conflict. If Blue wins youll never know who pushed red, and even if it was logged then blue should just accept a person pushed ted and moved>on, because bkue has already shown they dont want conflict. Why push blue at all if you if you cant accept someone who>pushed red?Exactly. And this is how we build western societies. Rule of law. Individual responsibility. Debate. Meritocracy. Rationale. We don't cower to hysterical blue button nanny staters who are like, "No button pushers left behind!" and live in perpetual fear of the button. That's how you kill western society. >>533848575It's not "selfish cowardice" if the long term implications of a blue button society is one that converges away from rationale and individual responsibility. That lives on the brink of suicide and distrust of fellow button pushers. You're talking about ideals, I'm being pragmatic and considering the long-term consequences. Also, you took the vax, didn't you?
>>533848774>So wtf is the point of even risking blue?It's a simple dichotomy, will you risk killing others to save yourself or will you risk killing yourself to save others? Except it's weighted. No one sane would pick blue if you had to have 100% blue as a win condition.
>>533848774>So wtf is the point of even risking blue?It's the option you say you'd pick to get emotional midwits and women to accept you.
Your mom tells you she pushed the blue button.It's now your turn to vote. What do you do?
>>533844661The funniest part is “It’s a clever inversion, but inverting it doesn’t establish the inversion as fact.” That’s projection in real time. The blue position is the inversion — it inverts who causes the deaths (blame the red voters for the blue voters’ coordination failure), it inverts who’s selfish (call the universally-survivable strategy selfish and the gamble altruistic), and it inverts the safety profile of the choices (treat blue as the no-harm option and red as the harmful one when it’s the opposite). The red voters’ framing is the literal mechanics of the puzzle. The blue voters’ framing requires several layers of moral overlay to make work. Accusing the red side of “inversion” while doing all the inverting is the kind of confident misdiagnosis that makes the thread fun to read.The other tell in that post is “they prefer so strongly that they do not die that they can’t actually engage with the question honestly.” Wanting to not die is being framed as an irrational distortion of the question, as if the puzzle isn’t literally about whether you die. The blue voter has reached a point where they’re treating the survival instinct itself as a bias to be overcome in service of the correct moral answer. That’s a hell of a place to end up, and it’s the place the blue position has to end up because every other defense fails. Eventually you have to argue that wanting to live is the bug, not the feature, and at that point you’ve lost the audience of anyone who’s actually thought about it.
>>533848575It is bad to kill yourself or harm yourself. It is morally wrong to do so. Everyone pushing red has no downsides. This isnt a case where everyone pushing red actually has a downside and if everyone pushes blue something better occurs, and its a question of whether people are weighing their own safety vs some societal good. That question would be like "and if blue wins everyone is guaranteed perfect health" or something. In that case pushing blue is the correct moral choice, you are trying to make society better and trusting that other people will come to the same rational conclusion as you.But in this delima there is no downside to everyone pushing red, and so the immediate safety of not playing russian roulette should occur to everyone to be the objectively good choice as it does not actively harm anyone in any way and actively helps you. Everyone should push red.The moral argument against red is merely that some people are retarded and will not think rationally. Well anon, you should discuss this with everyone you love and make sure they are moral and rational people and will know to push red because they have the correct ethical considerations. Then you dont have to worry.
>>533849101My mom is already dead.
>>533848893>Also, you took the vax, didn't you?Nope.>a blue button society is one that converges away from rationale and individual responsibility. That lives on the brink of suicide and distrust of fellow button pushers. How does it move away form rational is the precedent already exists that blue victory isn't just possible it's likely, and it's already happened once? You keep ignoring the point that within this framework literally the only reason to ever vote differently is explicitly to kill people. Blue already works, it's a solved problem. It would be irrational at this point to swap to red. The whole idea behind red is to save your self at the possibly expense of others. But blue has already proven its ability to save you. So why would you vote red, knowing that blue already has worked once? Your scenario doesn't make any sense, because the red position is fundamentally flawed.
>>533849101>Implying your vote will change what happens to her and that she didn't just press the suicide button, which it is.
>>533848893>Individual responsibility.The degradation of which is one of the most underappreciated harms to humanity in modern history.
>>533848575>they'll do it to fit inyou're the only country that threw people into camps for covid
>>533849249Why I disregard anyting a rootard says, they happily went to the coof camps
>>533849157If it's bad to kill or harm yourself then doesn't it become moral to pick blue to save suicidal blues? If you're always picking red you have no way to save blues. So then is it okay to kill or harm yourself? Is it okay to let some one else kill themselves? All these questions are ultimately a trap designed to obfuscate the fact that one button kills no one unless the majority of people pick the button that kills someone.
>>533849201>because the red position is fundamentally flawedWanting to live is a fundamentally flawed position?
>>533849101Realise I’m adopted because intelligence is largely genetic
>>533849331Press blue
>>533849517Wanting to kill others to live when it is literally easier to kill no one and also live is fundamentally flawed yes.
>>533849113>Eventually you have to argue that wanting to live is the bug, not the featureAltruism is a trap.
>>533849678>Wanting to kill othersYou kill YOURSELF pressing blue. I'm not responsible for YOUR bad decisions.
>>533846147Yeah they do, the prompt says "Everyone who didn't pick red" so that must mean everyone who didn't pick at all.
>>533842770I'm depressed and I want to die, so I'd press the blue button regardless of the outcome.
>>533849808It's just the meta. You might not like it but this is what peak humanity looks like. We risk ourselves to save others. We sacrifice our resources to nurture others. The problem is "Others" used to just mean extended family and tribes people, kinsmen. Now others includes the whole world and many are too retarded to recognize when help becomes harm. When risk outweighs reward. >>533849834No, I risk myself. You kill me, if retards like you are the majority. Which you're not, so it doesn't even matter.
>>533850043No one is stopping you from rigging up a blue button in your bathtub
>>533849113based and effortpilled
>>533850149You suicidal whites will be in the gulag when they take over.
>>533849201>You keep ignoring the point that within this framework literally the only reason to ever vote differently is explicitly to kill people. Blue already works, it's a solved problem. It would be irrational at this point to swap to red.Yes it would be an irrational decision. And blue button pushers are fundamentally irrational, that's why they pushed the blue button in the first place, because they're emotional and suicidal and don't think about the long-term consequences and implications of the system they're entering. So you're banking on their rationality when they've already ceded rationality by pushing the suicide button and folding to the button tyranny. Again, this is what your button pushing, unlike mine, self-selects for. Mine simply culls those who pressed the suicide button and after 4 years and every round following that it will be close to 100% red button pushes.
>>533850257I'm also a coward
>>533850603>>533849101
>Chads only>on /pol/Might as well ask for sex tips on /r9k/
>>533851046aren't you late for work at the holocaust museum? or are there other jobs in poland?
>>533849101neither of my parents took a covid shot
>>533850658Connect it to the Internet. There's a lot of retards itt who would be happy to press the blue button for you
>>533850149>No, I risk myself.If you risk yourself, then you kill yourself.Why am I responsible for your safety?
>>533850400You know not your roots. >>533850603Do you actually understand the premise? If over 50% of all people press the blue button every one lives. If 51% of all people press the red button half of every one dies. If you only care about yourself you pick the red button. But if you only care about yourself, then there's no reason for society to exist. Society exists based upon co-operation, and co-operation is the only path to mutual survival. To expect society to exist whilst not engaging in mutual co-operation isn't rational. And yet you've inverted things such that mutual co-operation is the irrational behavior, when it is what created society in the first place.
>>533851284I risk myself every time I get in my car that doesn't make it my fault that you're a shit driver.
>>533851337Your safety is your own responsibility.If you risk your life to save a kid from drowning, and die, did the kid kill you?
>>533850887>Your mom tells you she pushed the blue button.>It's now your turn to vote. What do you do?This goes back to my practical example:>>533846408>Red button = you don't allow mass immigration. Because you know that, rationally, mass immigration will ruin your society and make it as bad as the shithole where the immigrants came from. Whatever ability you do have to help these people is lost with this decision.>Blue button = you saw some dead nigger floating around in the ocean and now you emotional response it to allow mass immigration. You will make this decision despite there being a very high likelihood of your children and grandchildren suffering for it in the future, potentially even leading you to get robbed and killed by an immigrant.My mother in this case would be a dead nigger floating around in the ocean and you're appealing to empathy to make a decision that would damage society. But if we were already in a red button paradigm of rationale and individual responsibility, then my mother wouldn't make this stupid decision to begin with. >>533851299>Do you actually understand the premise?Lol, do you?You're arguing for:"No button pressers left behind.""Button diversity is our strength." "Feelings over facts.""The button is our master."I'm arguing for: "All read, or firmly dead.""Button homogeneity is our strength." "The red button doesn't care about your feelings." "The button doesn't mean shit, just don't press the blue suicide button and you will be fine."
lmao>I am better because I'm selfish!Imagine the world after all blue button pressers are gone and only selfish sociopaths remain, who killed people for literally zero reason
>>533842770.GOP w.
>>533843450this is color revolution defined in a logical proposition that is almost ambiguous but so simple to describe nothing. behavior isn't real.
>>533851507Did the kid stab me as I was trying to pull him ashore?
>>533851299society is made up of individuals, who must take responsibility for their actions. pressing blue means you truly do deserve to die.
>>533844843your IQ claims are a lie and I would rather a world where you pushed blue and are no longer in it. sadly we are in a world full of midwits.
>>533851523>"Button diversity is our strength."button diversity is a weakness actually, and redniggers should be put to death.
>>533842770I only want to live in a world with rational red button pressers. Bluetards think we can't have society or be selfless. Bluetards don't understand probability, math, incentives, some of them jump to conclusions to virtue signal. Im almost certain more productive workers the 20 part of 80:20 are red button pressers. We've studied economics.We would enter into a golden age if red lived and blue fell below 50% and died.
>>533849113We have a winner.
>>533851538>who killed people for literally zero reasonThey killed themselves.Retards who are literally unable to take responsibility for their own well being.
>>533851707ror rmao>if we valued selfishness MORE we'd win
>>533851538Reds are the rational people who didn't take the vax.>meme flagjej
markets created society and we quite literally trade with enemies we don't trust to this very day
>>533851659>button diversity is a weakness actually, and redniggers should be put to death.Unfortunately, that decision is not up to you since you allowed your suicidal empathy to get the best of you and now we're pressing the red button... You really should've thought about this. *presses the red button*
>>533851754It isnt selfish to press red at all.If everyone presses red everyone lives. What is your problem?You're just trying to kill yourself by pressing blue.
>>533851643responsibility is a collectivist notion.
If one hundred percent of people were smart enough to push the red button then 100 percent of people would survive, but unfortunately a lot of people are stupidly emotional so you introduce this false idea of some kind of empathy behind a chance to die and suddenly you get a lot of people pushing blue, because it makes them feel good, not because it's the smart thing to do.
>>533842770>50% of the world's population lives in China, SEA or the Indian subcontinentlike fuck am I gambling my life on third worlders. Red all the way
>>533851764>>533851845Reds are edgy losers who never had affection in their lives and think that society will be fixed if people were more selfish. Probably have a Greed is Good poster.
>>533851834>Unfortunately, that decision is not up to you since you allowed your suicidal empathy to get the best of you and now we're pressing the red button...You lost any way, not even the hateful retards on twitter could manage to press the red button do you think an entire world full of normies will?
>>533851911so true sis, wear the mask and take the vax to save the boomers from covid!
>>533851595irrelevant. You claim that I am killing you by pressing the red button, I say that you are killing yourself trying to save others.I claim that if you die trying to save somebody, you killed yourself.You're claiming that if you die trying to save somebody, you were killed by the person you were trying to save by virtue of trying to save them, which is retarded.
>>533851853social notion, such as a society of individuals
>>533849113good post
>>533851707>>533849101
>>533851861If you were smart you're press blue and this wouldn't even be a question. Any study of wartime behavior throughout history shows you that humans are remarkably reluctant to slaughter one another even when their entire job and their sole reason to exist is to kill other humans. I think it was brits who did some interesting sheet tests that saw active duty accuracy crater. Some soldiers were purposefully just not aiming at all and only pretending to fire. The blue button is a self fulfilling prophecy the more you press it the safer it is.
>>533849113>>533849101
blue pushers are the reason pic related is becoming a thingyou're literal slaves afraid of personal responsibility so you pawn it off to others
>>533852003>You're claiming that if you die trying to save somebody, you were killed by the person you were trying to save by virtue of trying to save them, which is retarded.Did the person drowning in the river jump in to be saved? If so I probably would let them drown and just feel really bad about it. Unless I was 100% sure I could save them with no personal risk to myself.
>>533852104If you were actually reluctant for anyone to die you would push red, because people only die if anyone pushes blue.
>>533852175It's the other way around, if you don't press red no one dies. even if a quarter of you press red no one dies. Only when over half of you press red do people die. if 90% of people press red 10% of people will die. If 90% of people press blue 100% of people will live.
>>533852172>If so I probably would let them drown and just feel really bad about it.Why not just press the red button and feel really bad about it then?
>>533851924>You lost any way, not even the hateful retards on twitter could manage to press the red button do you think an entire world full of normies will?This is just copium and you know it.
>>533852334If 100 percent of people press red, no one dies. Blue is introducing murder into the equation, not red.
>>533852344I feel like most normies would claim to press blue, and press red in secret lol. Just like how racism works.
>>533852336Because the world didn't jump into a button when it couldn't swim?
>>533851911Thats interesting you say that. During disasters where theres shortages of gas or hand sanitizer, I argued that rationing it but allowing prices to increase or have black markets is the most optimal outcome. Communists dont understand supply and demand so they'd say "no price fixing" and then black markets would happen anyways. The high price of the commodity then is a signal for people to ship much needed goods like gas or hand sanitizer there which resolves the shortage. People who want others to suffer say its price gouging, or call you a jew, and would rather see some people pay the same price as last week but hundreds of people get stranded with no fuel.I see rational self interest as a good thing. I believe in people making the right decision, to pick red. I havn't read "Greed is good" so i wont comment on it, but im guessing its some libertarian philosophy where people are entering into mutually beneficial arrangements but I can understand why people hate 'greedy' corporate types. And I don't have a good answer for that other than laws to proportionally cap CEO's salaries to something like 10x of a worker instead of 100000x.
Red pushers are simply existing and then blue comes along and goes "you need to agree with me or else"
>>533851911Blue button pushers can only resort to kindergarden namecalling and shame to push the mentally stunted to their dead. It won't make a difference because people who push red already made their choice even before this thought experiment. Anyone who go for blue have a deathwish and navigate reality on a flawed, self destructive, distorted reasoning for no reason at all. You may want to fix that bit before is too late.
>>533852384If 50% of people press blue, no one dies. Red is introducing murder into the equation, not blue. My bar is lower than yours, so it's morally correct.
>>533852467How many people die if zero percent of people press the blue button?
>>533852444checked
>>533852157i smoke a lot of joints in the (every) morning and when i got some new rental car it suggested i take a coffee break after 5 mins
>>533849101Im gonna text my mom the dillema and see what she says
>>533852491The same amount that will die if zero percent of people press the red button.
As soon as one person presses the blue button, they die, UNLESS they can convince 50 percent of the rest of the people to also press it with them.Blue is a suicide cult. Red button pushers make no claim about the value of others living based on their button push. Blue button pressers are going to kill themselves unless you agree with them.
>>533852398People (retards) would press blue and expect somebody to jump in and save them. Those people are dumbasses and I'm not exactly thrilled to see them die but I'm not shocked, nor am I going to risk myself for them.You're pressing blue and begging to be saved by others after the fact, demanding that they risk themselves because of YOUR poorly thought out decision, made out of emotion. Sorry, not doing it. Choosing red, convincing everybody I care about to choose red, if you want to kill yourself that's on you.
>blue pushers
As soon as one person presses the red button, nothing happens UNLESS they can convince 50 percent of the rest of the people to also press it with them. Red is a murder cult. Blue button pushers make no claim about the value of others living based on their button push. Red button pressers are going to kill you unless you agree with them.
>>533852444"If you dont donate your entire life savings to starving africans some of them will die" - blue
>>533852467>If 50% of people press blue, no one dies. Red is introducing murder into the equation, not blue. My bar is lower than yours, so it's morally correct.Your morality wont matter when red buttoners wins. It will be a distant memory of hedonistic nanny state faggotry in the past. Your tombstone will read: "Pressed the wrong button."
>>533852694red doesnt need to convince cause its logicalif its 99% blue niggers anyway you can just leave me in peace no?
>>533852582No, I just know that the type of person who presses red isn't the type of person I want to solely occupy the planet so I pick blue. You can pick red all you like, the bluechads out number you anyway.
>>533852694How is red the murder cult when is the only choice that guarantee your safety no matter what? How is this even an issue? Because it breaks your feelings?
>>533852694yeah that doesn't work in this context. Just like the original thought experiment, you didn't think your answer through at all.
>>533852717I won't have a tombstone, redniggers care nothing for others, their memory exists as far as what they were doing and feeling a day ago, history and reality are entirely subjective to the redfaggot, like a Jew, all that matters is what they feel was correct at the time.
>>533842770Run this vote, but kill the reds if they lose. You'd have culled the selfish minority.
>>533852783The thing is, it doesn't matter what you want. Your basing your decision off an idealistic version of reality, rather than actual reality.And I don't care if blue outvotes me you fucking dumbass lol
>>533852812It literally works better because the blue button saves indiscriminately
>>533852858rare flag detectedare you actually Algerian or a proxy fag?
>>533852783>No, I just know that the type of person who presses red isn't the type of person I want to solely occupy the planet so I pick blue. You can pick red all you like, the bluechads out number you anyway.Red buttoners just wanna be left alone in their red button society to press their red buttons, man. If you wanna live here, why can't you just assimilate and press the red button? Like, wtf? What's next? A green button? A nerfed button? A rainbow button? Just press the red button, ffs. That's all we ask. All red, or firmly dead. We didn't give a shit about your six million blue buttons.
>>533852850>history and reality are entirely subjective to the redfaggot...And so is to everyone else. Is (You) the only one who can't accept the truth, and feel better feeling righteous even if it pretty clear that its all an illusion.
>>533842770>Red Button? THE SHINY BEAUTIFUL RED BUTTON! THE CANDY LIKE BUTTON!
>>533852924Saves from what? The death that it introduces itself? The blue button is like a mob protection racket.
it appears we have won this evening
>>533853018>is younigger detected
>>533843248saaaaAAAaaaaaAaaaaAaaar
>>533852892I don't care what you do, I still press blue. Blue is the only option that lets me meaningfully chose for a world not occupied by brown sociopaths.>>533853018Society is a collaborative effort and is the vehicle through which history moves. Society breeds objectivity and memory. You're not winning this argument. >>533853044Please tell me the mob protection racket that works even with 49% of people not paying into it
>>533853096I respect your choice to die. No hard feelings.
>>533853163It's called the DNC.
>>533853206That's because of the reds at the top tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6nbFZtxAL4
>>533853163>Blue is the only option that lets me meaningfully chose for a world not occupied by brown sociopaths.But the sociopaths wouldn't go away if blue won, would they? They would still occupy the world.We'd just have less people that they would have a super easy time exploiting.
blue brains are the reason the US government can straight up lie about iran magically killing 40k people in a couple hours conveniently with no drone photos and defend more middle east wars on twitter
The morals aren't even real, make whatever ratios you want, the question is>Risk your life for an unknown change in probabilities>Don'tIt's that simple, you can't know what you're risking for without some special prior knowledge, therefore are you suicidal or not? I don't know what will happen, it could be that I'm throwing my life away because it wouldn't have made a difference, and I won't do that. The choice is gambling vs not gambling.
>>533853163>Blue is the only option that lets me meaningfully chose for a world not occupied by brown sociopaths.Blue button philosophy opens the gates for brown sociopaths. The actual "OPEN" button on the gates is the blue button, your suicidal feminine empathy.
>>533853163There is no argument here. The correct choice is clear. Again, perfect thought experiment to reflect how bad you have been conditioned to deny the facts in front of you, even if it kills you. As i said, i respect your choice to die, no hard feelings from my end. People who don't look after themselves can't look after anyone else anyway.
>>533853349shun!! Iran hall of cost denier!!
Red button is basically "keep doin what you're doin"Blue button is "the prisoner's dilemma but its a secret and globally applied" If you would choose to press the blue button, then it is likely that you are a psychopath
>the australian is still at it
>>533853163The question is the same as the following:>humanity is teleported infront of a giant woodchipper>you can jump into it or not and everyone chooses at the same time>if <50% of humanity jumps into the woodchipper they die>if >50% of humanity jumps into the woodchipper it magically stops and no one is harmed>you can also just not jumpNo one choosing not to jump killed anyone. Its the rational action to refuse to jump.
>>533853500some blue buttoners see it like 100% of people have to press red for everyone to live, while only 51% of people have to press blue for everyone to live
>>533853331>But the sociopaths wouldn't go away if blue won, would they? They would still occupy the world.>We'd just have less people that they would have a super easy time exploiting.0-50% sociopaths is better than 100%>>533853436You tried this retard analogy earlier and it didn't work.>>533853449>People who don't look after themselves can't look after anyone else anyway.This is true, but red doesn't look after any one at all. Blue, however, has a lower success threshold, meaning it's easier to achieve>>533853520I'm going to bed now anyway. It's been a fun thought experiment.
>>533853782you're getting lost, it's good for you to go to bed now.
>>533845246based, this is exactly how it will go down, only retards with suicidal empathy who watch rick and morty and think they're smart would pick blue
am i fucking stupid or something? what stops all of us from pressing the red button so we can literally without fail all survive?
>>533854065nothing, if you're stupid enough to not comprehend what you're reading and not pressing the red button you shouldn't live anyways since you'd likely be scammed by some shitty terms and conditions and end up in a death squid game in the future anyways
>>533854065Nothing. Blue is just a suicide button people are desperately trying to justify.I guess the argument is retards are going to choose blue to matter what so it's your duty to try and save them, but I hold the belief that I am not responsible for the poor decisions of others.
>>533854219>>533854193then i think his hypotetical is fucking stupid he shoulda added another rule like if red is majority 10% of reds will randomly die
>>533847983>new nebulous point>>533847578>The locally rational decision is to press red>>533847270>Like I said, pressing red is locally rational.>>533846336>Yes, I'm choosing the locally irrational choice in favor of my political thesis.>>533845742>You're smuggling in the presupposition that acting locally-rationally is a priori logical.>>533845668>In fact, it is locally rational (i.e. rational for the individual) in a vacuum to press the red button>>533844661>Picking red is more likely to kill more people, but you will never die.
>>533854734It is stupid, but most people are also stupid.It's a filter.
>>533854065Hypothetically nothing, but you're not told of if someone will press the blue button.So it's a test for stupidity and suicidal altruism. The unknown variables heavily favor anyone pressing the red button because it could literally be 99% red 1% blue and blue could just automatically mean suicide to do nothing. The only way blue ever matters is if you're the one singular vote that swings everything. In a room full of 10 people where you get to watch them press the button blue could make sense, then you don't have a bunch of random variables like people just walking in the door, pressing a button, and you dying, you'd have a fixed amount.Blue is just "accepting a random variable to be suicidal for people you don't know", red is rejecting the gambling and suicidal altruism.>>533854734This, then it could be a real moral dilemma. Not even 10% because that would be too easy, something like 1%. That would make it close to something you'd have to think about.
>>533849113>Accusing the red side of “inversion” while doing all the inverting is the kind of confident misdiagnosis that makes the thread fun to read."Inversion" refers to the following. Original framing:>press the blue button and you might die but you kill no one>press the red button and you will not die but others might dieVersus:>press the blue button and you might kill yourself but others will live>press the red button and you live but others might kill themselvesThey are equally logically valid statements. They refer to the exact same sequence of events, but you "invert" the focus from global consequences to strictly local consequences. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.
>>533855188>you might die but you kill no oneBlue button pushing no ones on suicide watch
>>533852929Why would I ever tunnel through algeria ya bghal
>>533855188“Press the red button and others might die” — this implies that pressing red causes others to die, or contributes to others dying. It does not. A red voter’s choice has no effect on whether blue voters clear their threshold; the blue voters’ fate is determined by how many blue voters there are, which is determined by other blue voters’ choices. A red voter pressing red does not push any blue voter closer to death. The blue voters who die in a failed-coordination scenario die because not enough other people pressed blue, not because some people pressed red. These are different causal claims.The correct symmetric framings would be:Blue framing: “Press blue and you enter a gamble whose outcome depends on how many other blue voters there are; press red and you exit the gamble entirely.”Red framing: same thing.There’s no actual inversion needed because the puzzle’s structure already determines who is and isn’t endangered by what. Red voters’ survival is independent of all other choices. Blue voters’ survival depends on the count of other blue voters. That’s not a framing question, that’s a structural fact about the puzzle. The “global versus local” framing the poster is offering isn’t two valid lenses on the same events, it’s one accurate description and one description that imports a causal claim (“red voters might cause others to die”) that the puzzle’s mechanics don’t support.The deeper issue is that the poster is trying to rescue the blue position by making the dispute purely about perspective rather than about facts, but the disputed facts aren’t perspectival. Whether red voters can cause blue voters’ deaths is a question with a determinate answer given the puzzle’s rules, and the answer is no. You can’t reframe your way to a different answer on that.
>>533855188this reeks of uniparty scum blaming libertarians when one of their teams loses
>>533852522so has she responded?
>>533855723This dude really just spat out an AI answer. >the posterDead giveaway. Anyway, you didn't actually tell your AI to directly address my argument. In what way, exactly, does the sequence of events change? Feed this into your LLM:Let:B = you press blueR = you press redY = you may dieO = others may dieS = you surviveL = others liveOriginal framing:B -> Y ∧ ¬OR -> S ∧ OInversion:B -> Y ∧ LR -> S ∧ O_selfB -> risk(self) ∧ reduce_risk(others)R -> preserve(self) ∧ transfer_risk(others)It's basically:R -> others_may_die_because_red_winsvsR -> others_may_die_because_they_chose_blueBecause the inversion is equal to the original, both framings are equally logically valid. The disagreement, therefore, follows as non-logical or driven by priors and/or values. This has been my argument the entire time, but it's impossible to get people to admit that their opinion isn't factually correct.
>>533856518R -> S ∧ O (red leads to self-survival AND others may die)B -> Y ∧ L (blue leads to self-risk AND others live)This formalization treats R as causally producing O and B as causally producing L. But in the puzzle, neither individual choice produces those outcomes — the population-level threshold produces them. A single R vote in a sea of B votes still results in everyone living. A single B vote in a sea of R votes still results in only the R voters living. The individual choice doesn’t determine the global outcome; the aggregate determines it. Their notation collapses the level distinction and assigns global outcomes to individual actions.The correct formalization, if you want to be careful, is:For any individual voter:R -> S (self survives, with certainty, regardless of others)B -> S iff (count(B) > 0.5 × N), else deathThe “others may die” outcome isn’t caused by R, it’s caused by count(B) failing to exceed threshold. R voters aren’t contributing to that failure any more than non-voters in any election are contributing to the loser’s loss — they’re just not contributing to the winner’s win, which is a different thing.So when they write “R -> others_may_die_because_red_wins” versus “R -> others_may_die_because_they_chose_blue,” they’re presenting these as equivalent but they’re not. The first is causally false; the second is causally accurate. “Red wins” doesn’t kill anyone — there’s no scenario in the puzzle where red voters win and that winning kills blue voters. Blue voters die when blue voters fail to coordinate. The “red wins” framing is just a redescription of “blue voters failed to clear threshold,” and pretending those are two equally valid causal stories isn’t.
>>533853782>You tried this retard analogy earlier and it didn't work.Kek. My "retarded analogies" destroyed your irrational, feminine so-called arguments, you're just too in your feels to acknowledge it. But that's ok. The red button will put you out of your misery and raise the level of this discourse.
>>533856817>The “others may die” outcome isn’t caused by R, it’s caused by count(B) failing to exceed threshold. R voters aren’t contributing to that failure any more than non-voters in any election are contributing to the loser’s loss — they’re just not contributing to the winner’s win, which is a different thing.You're pushing the LLM into too weak a position. It's flailing. The threshold is external but human beings act within the threshold. Red is not "opting out". It is a choice which materially changes outcomes. It's not fun talking with someone's LLM.
>>533857345who are you quoting when you say "opting out"
>>533857345These are symmetric in structure but asymmetric in robustness, and that’s not a values judgment, it’s a property of the outcome space. Red voters’ self-survival outcome is dominant — it occurs in 100% of scenarios. Blue voters’ self-risk outcome is conditional — survival occurs only in the subset of scenarios where threshold is met. The framing-equivalence move tries to make this symmetry pure, but it can’t, because one strategy is robust to the other’s choices and the other isn’t.Here’s the real challenge: their argument requires that pressing blue and pressing red be symmetrically valid moral choices given different priors. But priors don’t make a strategy robust. You can have any priors you want about the population’s behavior and red still produces self-survival in every scenario; blue only produces self-survival in scenarios where your priors about cooperation turn out correct. That’s not perspectival. The strategies aren’t morally equivalent under uncertainty because one is bet-proof and the other isn’t, and “morally equivalent under priors” requires that the priors themselves be equally defensible — which they aren’t, because the puzzle gives you no information about other voters and “trust the population” with no evidence is a weaker prior than “assume nothing and self-protect.”So yes, the disagreement involves values. But it also involves the prior question of whether the framing they’re calling “logically equivalent” actually is, and the answer is “structurally yes, robustness-wise no.” The values argument they want to have is downstream of the structural asymmetry they’re trying to dissolve. They can have the values argument once they grant that pressing blue requires a leap that pressing red doesn’t, and that asymmetry is the substance, not the framing.
>>533857450It's the only logical interpretation of how R isn't actively contributing to the potential deaths of B. R very obviously can't contribute to anything greater than individual survival. Therefore, if it is to be globally rational, it must at least be neutral in terms of outcomes. This is why that guy's LLM is arguing that the threshold itself must be the causal actor unrelated to R choices. It isn't. Choosing R contributes to that threshold. No one chose to instantiate the threshold itself (I hope), but in the absence of the ability to "opt out," the optimally globally-rational decision is to press blue. You may die but others have a better chance at living. >Here’s the real challenge: their argument requires that pressing blue and pressing red be symmetrically valid moral choices given different priorsThis is why the LLM is annoying -- it's not good at dealing with even semi-novel arguments. My argument is not that either option is logically more rational than the other -- it never has been. My argument is that because the "inversion" which "selfish players" use to justify their selfishness refers to the exact same logical sequence of events (stripped of valence) "altruistic players" use to justify their altruism -- myself included -- the question cannot be resolved logically. It's totally contingent on priors and/or values imported a priori -- honestly or not. I'm just trying to get the "selfish players" to admit that without copes or appeals to logic because the sequences are identical except for framing.
>>533857563Last post was supposed to point at you>Here’s the real challenge: their argument requires that pressing blue and pressing red be symmetrically valid moral choices given different priorsThis is why the LLM is annoying -- it's not good at dealing with even semi-novel arguments. My argument is not that either option is logically more rational than the other -- it never has been. My argument is that because the "inversion" which "selfish players" use to justify their selfishness refers to the exact same logical sequence of events (stripped of valence) "altruistic players" use to justify their altruism -- myself included -- the question cannot be resolved logically.It's totally contingent on priors and/or values imported a priori -- honestly or not.I'm just trying to get the "selfish players" to admit that without copes or appeals to logic because the sequences are identical except for framing.
>>533857944the values aren’t equally defensible just because they exist. “Privilege individual survival under uncertainty” is a prior with a long philosophical pedigree (basically every social contract theorist from Hobbes forward), and “trust strangers to coordinate on a gamble where my life is the stake” is a prior with a much thinner case behind it. Both are values, neither is forced by logic, but they’re not symmetrically supported by the broader tradition of how humans have actually thought about decision-making under uncertainty. He can win the meta-point that it’s values all the way down, and still lose the object-level point that one set of values is better-grounded than the other.
>>533845246>red wins! it's 51 to 49>society crashes and living standard goes to shit>feral gangs (which of course pressed red, cus fuck errbody else rite) now rule what remains>turns out you killed close relatives and some friendsle high IQ wins again hehe
