>go on social media once>be confronted with information that makes you lose all faith and trust in the human race both in general and on a local level
>jewish false dichotomyI ignore it.
Imagine not being a red button man. Imagine, lol
Kindly fuck off and properly tag your thread so that I can filter it. I don't care about your FOTW reddit flamewar.
If you aint pushing red I don't trust you as a real member of society. You should be relegated to the tard ranch and used as cattle
>>534127580no one fucking careskill yourself lmao
>>534127580man the internet sucks just non stop low iq brown shit nothing funny or original anymore, just regurgitated slop reposted a billion times
Blue button pushers on suicide watch
>>534127580Your faith in humanity was always stupid and misplaced and rooted entirely in your brainwashing you were too stupid to resist.
>>534127644>>534127726See this is what radicalized me. At first I wanted to press blue because why would you press the button that's designed to murder peopleThen I saw all the smug reds patting themselves on the back for securing their own survival no matter what and I realized what a fool I'd been, risking my life for people who not only don't give a shit but jerk themselves off for being selfish assholes. It's only a stupid hypothetical but I will be applying it in my daily life from now on. Fuck everyone else. No wonder boomers lose their minds about social media, this shit genuinely fucked me up
>>534127580
Red = communismBlue = national socialism
>>534128030You cant pay game theory in a low trust non white society. Red is the only way
>>534127580>lose all faith and trust in the human raceThis is the goal.
>>534128185You can't have a high trust society when your neighbors are willing to risk suicide for no reason at any moment.
>>534127777>the internet suckschecked
>>534128185Yes you can retard.
>>534127580Blue button should be labeled "Everyone lives"Red button should be labeled "Kill everyone who pushed the blue button.">Red buttoners: "No! Blue is a vote to kill yourself!"Can't make this shit up.
>>534129381the only reason you would ever press blue is if you believe most people are total retards or you yourself are a total retard
>>534127777Digits, death to jeets and memeflaggots.
>>534128030There's no reason to press blue unless you want to kill yourself though. see >>534128037You're not saving anyone, you're just making a bad decision. Anyone who wants to live just choses red, and some retards like you get all confused die.
>>534128030It's not smugness you're just not understanding. Your agency is completely removed in this scenario. The unspoken premise is that someone or thing is forcing you to choose a button at the threat of death, forcing you into a scenario where its an option between 100% survival and unknown%. You press the red button every day you choose to live. What you want to do is shame people for wanting to exist.>>534128185this is game theory though
>>534129522You can literally do the maths and see that's not true. I showed you a picture of it. The questions is purely a test of values if you understand it properly.
>>534127580Say no more, I'm pushing itpsssssst *whispers*the red button
>>534129381The idea that Somalis, leftist lying psychopaths, women, etc. will actually press blue is retarded nonsense. They will not. Many, like you, will lie about it to make themselves look good and then they will press red.
>>534129381I don't care if people who play Russian Roulette die as a result of their game, though, so in game theory "blues die" isn't a downside, it registers as "nothing happens". So I'll press Red because I don't play Russian Roulette and I'm not obligated to stand in front of their revolver when they pull the trigger.
>>534129606>test of valuesWhat value is endangering yourself and expecting others to risk their lives to save you?
>>534129587Blues just don't understand what the word murder means it's so fucking funny.
>>534129711Yet in practice, we saw blue win and it was leftists that pressed the button. Right wing people can't comprehend having faith in others and assume everyone else is as heartless as they are.>>534129756This is covered in the image as “you don't care about the lives of other people.”>>534129784The person who set up the buttons is the one who created the danger, not the particpants.
>>534129606your picture is retarded. who says blue wins at 50/50?
>>53412758050.1% kills the 49.9%New vote unlocked50.1% kills the 49.9%New vote unlocked Voting will continue until only 2 people remain.
>>534129862>This is covered in the image as “you don't care about the lives of other people.”I care about the lives of other people.But when people deliberately do something stupid and reckless I don't care about that.
>>534129796If there were some horror movie character like saw that rounded up three people and forced them to play this game, blue pushers would fault the people for all choosing red because they all wanted to live.
>>534129606>>534129886because i assume you're a pedantic faggot i meant to say "who says blue dies at 50/50"
>>534129522The equation changes if you know that e.g. your mother or wife has been brainwashed into pressing blue. Now if you press red, your action will have contributed to killing her.
>>534129381I don't think most people would pick blue, so I go with red.
>>534127580https://youtube.com/shorts/9io0ldpeQsI
>>534129886If I told you that the vote is split precisely 50/50, and you will decide it, which button would you press?
>>534129862Everyone was provided a safe button.
>>534127580Why even press blue to begin with? Blue is gambling with your life VS Red is press and forget. Pressing blue to potentially save another puts your life at risk as well.For me to press blue, it has to have another reward in addition to being alive.
>>534129862>leftists pretend online they will push blue>"Yet in practice, we saw blue win"lol
>>534127580Bluetards are like: if more than half choose blue everyone lives - I hope everyone is as unselfish as meRedchads are like: if everyone chooses red everyone lives - if some people are so unfathomly stupid as to choose blue, perhaps they are too stupid to live.
>>534128126>kikeshitscam made by the son of a rabbi >red
>>534127580Feels like 2021 doesn't it
>>534129906They are not doing something stupid. As you can see from the game theory, if you believe others will press blue and place value on their lives, pressing blue is logical. And these people were vindicated as blue is the choice when the poll was conducted.>>534129983The numbers are in, most picked blue.>>534130048Both buttons are safe if everyone presses them.
>>534130001such a retarded scenario, game theory is for faggots. i'd pick red to spite blue. there's no logical reason to pick blue if you have so many ways of dying
>>534127580There’s a good reason I only come here and occasionally Plebbit for discussion on psychedelics only, The internet is fake n gay and full of Jewish niggerbrains. I won’t suffer that shit.
>>534130001blue of course. I have nothing to gain by pressing red, both outcomes are 100% guaranteed survival, one option comes with an extra benefit. This is a wildly different proposal than the original question.
>>534130001I would press red, because I have no reason to believe you.
>>534129563Red is the logical decision for self interest. Zero risk, all reward.But it's a sudden private vote without prior discussion, you will only be presented with the question as is. You can't guarantee people will make a logical decision.Since I didn't have a chance to confirm with my loved ones or everyone in the world, I cannot guarantee people will make a logical decision. So I'm picking blue to decrease that risk of other blues death
>>534130048The red button is safe and effective.The red button stops the spread of the blues in 2 more weeks.
Everyone seems to forget that the decision is supposed to take place in a vacuum. No one knows how anyone else will vote.It boils down to personal values. Red button is voting to save your self at the risk of everyone else in the world.Blue button is voting to save everyone in the world at the risk of one's self.What one's choice ultimately reflects is what one values more: self-interest or common good. It's not particularly surprising that most around here would pick the red button.
>>534129784They're only endangered if the majority of thirdie-brained buttonpushers go for red. The red button fucking creates the problem it claims to solve.I've seen this IRL. Folks who choose to be selfish because ironically they believe the majority of the community will do the right thing and dilute the consequences of their actions. I'm still pushing red but only under duress. Fuck all of you. You made this a problem.
>>53412758051% blue = everyone lives51% red = 49% of all humanity diesit's self evident to push blue so who are the jews and golems pushing red??
>>534130163If you value the lives of others and believe they will do the same, there is a logical reason to pick blue. It is a test of values.>>534130189They why do you trust that the red button won't kill you?
>>534130156>The numbers are in, most picked blue.Yes, most people say and even think they would press blue. Most people also say and think they wouldn't be Nazis in Nazi Germany. What people say is worthless.
>>534130156Only the red button is safe if not everyone presses it. It stands to reason that most people will be reasonable and press the red button. You can't save the willfully stupid from themselves and you probably shouldn't
>>534127580>let me pose a specific hypothetical>oh I see. so if you won't put yourself at risk for the drooling retards who picked blue you are a self-centered chudcraft a better scenario. this shit is dumb
>>534130191In this scenario >>534129956 if two people voted red and one voted blue, who would you blame for murder?
>>534127777it's so depressing
>>534130272>They why do you trust that the red button won't kill you?Because the dilemma implies a lack of ambiguity regarding the nature of the buttons.
>>534127580Seeing all the blue pressers restored my faith in humanity
>>534130257If you push blue you create a problem for others. Red is the responsible choice.
>>534130310So we can see it's a test of trust. If you trust others then you pick blue, if you don't then red is the goal. It's really the central political question. Get yours and screw everyone else, or risk it by trusting others for a greater payout.
>>534130410And the question I posed implies a lack of ambiguity as to whether or not the vote was actually split.
>>534130446If I trusted others I would trust them not to endanger themselves by pressing blue.
>>534130272people selecting blue is pathological altruism towards people that don't deserve it. blue pickers are exactly why our society is so upside down trying to uplift niggers and jeets. it's not my problem
>>534130393The blue button pusher
>>53413027199.8% red = 99.8% live, and no need to depend on other people to do the right thing. All they need to do is pick red.
>>534130523It's towards no one at all.
>>534130245Except that the dichotomy between self-interest and common good is false.Everyone of sound mind can tell that the red button has 0 fatal consequences, thus you'd have to be a moron to choose blue.At the same time, most people project unto others. They think everyone's a selfish moron.But seeing as being selfish and self-absorbed and entirely about me myself and I is what most people do, they'd pick red even though everyone thinks they're stupid.The common good doesn't actually exist. It's a false narrative. The premise of the blue button even alludes to this."If you press blue and less than half the people press blue, you die."There is no common good before you press a button.Then your choice creates a need for more people to press blue. Is that a common good?No. It's selfish. "YOU MUST VOTE BLUE BECAUSE I DID, KNOWING IT GETS ME IN TROUBLE."That's the most narcissistic selfish thing you can do.It is however, exactly the thesis laid out.The illusion of red being selfish, versus the reality of blue and its illusory collectivism which is nothing more than narcissism projected unto a crowd.
>>534130327This is subversive wording.Only the red button is truly safe. If I told you that one bridge was guaranteed not to collapse, but a second bridge will collapse for certain if there are a low number of people that pick it, the first bridge is objectively more safe.
>>534130535You seriously wouldn't blame the psycho that set it up?
>>534127580Lets say there is two buttons, one does nothing, the other puts you 1 million dollars in debt but if more than 50% of people push this button that debt is cancelled, which button do you push?
>>534130577It's hilarious the hoops red button pushers have to jump through to reframe this and pretend it's acktually the blue button pushers who are the selfish narcissists.>trying to do good things is acktually bad
>>534130440You know people will press blue because they want everyone to live. You still press red knowing it would kill those people who only meant well
>>534130446>If you trust others then you pick blue, if you don't then red is the goal.>Get yours and screw everyone elseNot the same thing. No, I do not trust that the third world will selflessly vote blue purely for a sense of shared, global altruism enough to stake my life on it. That does not mean I don't care about anyone else in this world.
>>534130588disregard this sorry wrong person
the choice is obvious
>>534130522That would be a bad idea to maximise utility, game theory explains why.>>534130523Altruism is a winning strategy in many cases.
Election with two candidates. Both are intelligent people with strong leadership credentials. Candidate A is running on an "Everyone Lives" platform. Candidate B's platform, on the other hand, is that anyone who would be dumb enough to vote for Candidate A is a detriment to society and will be sent away to camps and quietly executed if he's elected. Let's assume both would be excellent leaders and that this is a one time thing.Blue button to vote for Candidate A. Red button to vote for Candidate B. According to Red button logic, voting for Candidate A is suicide and we ought to support Candidate B. Anyone who voted for Candidate A brought their fate on themselves.Voting for Candidate A is selfish and acktually bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oduG9597Bw
>>534130410You love to see it. In order to make blue even an option, you have to actively deny the reality of the situation.
>>534130664you can't save people from themselves. you have to grow up
>>534130156same question for you >>534130393
>>534130664It's funny to see blue pushers gaslight random people into making an altruistic sacrifice, even though they didn't have to push blue in the first place.They did it just to create the need and to trick people.
>>534130664>Pressing blue is a good thing Why ?it only endangers people (you and the rest of the retards )
>>534130717But you do trust that people in your own country are selfless bluers, and condemn them to death while letting third worlders live. Funny that.
>>534130481No, it didn't. You said "If I told you", implying there is actually a person who is telling me something in this scenario, and people lie.
>>534130676>they want everyone to liveIf that was the case they would pick red so they would live also.
>>534130833The person who put the buttons there. But realistically, blame is not a useful tool for maximising utility. You can blame anyone you want by a complicated enough logic, and it's usually juts a rationalisation to absolve you of responsibility for your decisions.
>>534130855Your mom would most likely press blue and you would kill her
>>534128030Please attempt to explain your logic.Here's how it is from my vantage point:>see red and blue buttons>blue: pick this if you want a chance of dying lol>red: pick this and nothing bad happens to you>hmmm....>does picking blue give me anything?>no lol>does picking blue give anyone else anything?>no lolHere's an alternative example for you, with the EXACT SAME branch of logic.>here drink this poisonous drug>wtf why>well, if more than 50% of the population does, it will scare le trusted scientists to develop a cure!>oh. well. or we could just not drink it.>WTF YOU MISANTHROPIST THINK OF THE RETARDS WHO WILL DRINK IT NO MATTER WHAT!
>>534130788
>>534130880It's amazing how much of leftist discourse is them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.
>>534130857My vote is 1 in 8 billion. I simply have no power to save anyone but myself. If my entire nation collectively decided to commit suicide, I would not join them, and accept becoming the last living Norwegian.
>>534128030You don't push red to secure your survival, you push red to try to cull the commies.Red is the actual choice to create a better world.
>>534130961Mine wouldn't
you pressed red because you wanted to liveI pressed red because I wanted women to diewe are not the sameif all women died it would push us to develop the iron womb and reach new heights as a civilization
>>534130191How will you feel when you're decision making wipes out 49% of the planet because you retard bluepillers only added to the risk, and the rational decision makers made the rational decision? Blue incurs risk, red doesn't. The optimal vote, morally, is contingent upon the probability of blue winning, but we don't know that at time of voting, so red is the only choice so it doesn't worse the collective risk profile. Minimizing blue votes by voting red and accepting any collateral damage is the rational collective action with the highest EV.
>>534130855My people press red so not really.
>>534131004You literally presented a hypothetical where you are telling me something before I push the button. Don't come at me because you worded it poorly.
>>534130909they press blue because it says everyone will live. That’s their intention. Many will not think beyond that line and just want to do what’s good for everyone and you punish them for doing so
>>534127580I'm sick of buttonslop.
>>534130941>The person who put the buttons there.Okay. At least you accept that red can never be considered murder.>You can blame anyone you want by a complicated enough logicNot really. people are being forced into it. Every single thought and action comes with that aesterisk.>rationalisation to absolve you of responsibility for your decisionsword for word, this is what blue is doing when putting themselves in harm's way, for nothing
>>534130257see this >>534131086how can you not understand that even collectively, red is the more altruistic bet? Minimize risk in the face of uncertainty, vote where the highest EV is. That's red.
>>534131073Try her
>>534131086But it's not my decision that made it ,I had 1/8'000'000'000 of power in that decision. Are best I have a 1/8 billion responsibility. Blue on the other hand has a 100% responsibility for his decision
>>534127580To my knowledge the scenario has led to retards using it to virtue signal because the red button speaks of death in the description while the blue one does not. Which is retarded because examining it it only speaks of death for people who push the blue button thus making blue the actual death button. It’s like if someone put two drinks in two different cups and said “one is water, the other is cyanide”. If you drink the cyanide you will obviously fucking die. But since it was worded as “if you drink from the red cup, people who drink from the blue cup will die” it creates a scenario where the death of one group is placed on the other even though there is no reason to drink from the blue cup at all. There is also the aspect of uniparty politics which has been inserted since the colors red and blue are being used which makes retards go even more rabid over it.
>>534130156>They are not doing something stupid.They are risking their own lives for no reason. There is no downside to pressing red, and no reason for anyone to press blue.
>>534129381The only people who press blue are white people with suicidal empathy, these are the same people who support replacement genocide. We would be much better off without them.
>>534130156>f you believe others will press blue and place value on their lives, pressing blue is logical. How does choosing to kill 50% of all people equal having value over their own lives? The person that values their life - nay, life itself - chooses the red. The blue is either suicidal tendencies or lack of value of life in general.
>>534130990low effort the other one is at least funny
>>534127580I lost faith in humanity the day I was concieved.
>>534131156Pushing blue is the only way to cause any death.
>>534131550>nay, life itselfPrecisely this, any other framing is subversion to socially enforce nihilism. The act of survival is why we're even thinking at all right now.
>>534130393>We have poison available.>If more than 50% of the population elects to swallow the poison, it will be diluted so everyone survives!>Or you can be selfish and choose not to swallow the poison.>...Can everyone choose not to swallow the poison?>Yes>...Then why would they elect to swallow poison?>Because they think other people will swallow the poison too and save them>...or they could just not swallow it?>yeah>>534130446This is a false understanding as well.>greater payoutTHERE IS NO GREATER PAYOUT.If everyone chooses red, they have access to the same payout. It's not "blue > red if everyone does it".
>>534131705You don’t get how people functionSee blue gf >>534130788They will press blue and the only way to protect them is to also press blue
>>534128030Thats not even why red is correct you stupid fucking spiritual bluey. Holy shit. How are you people so dumb
>>534130191Why would there need to be prior discussion. The dilemma is simple press the red button and you do not die, press the blue button and you die. You are effectively trying to say that people should risk an unnecessary death to press a button that has a chance of death over pressing a button that has no chance of death. Anyone who picks blue is either mentally retarded or is trying to virtue signal (different flavor of mentally retarded). >Since I didn't have a chance to confirm with my loved ones or everyone in the worldWhy would you need to? Do you seriously need to have approval from some collective just to make a simple decision? This is the most no brainer choice possible, there is no real downside to pressing the red button save some retards may die if enough of them press the blue button. You do not need to discuss this, you do not need to constantly think and ponder on it, it is the most simple shit to understand.
>>534131748Why do you fear the question?>>>We have poison available.It's "I'm forcing you at gunpoint to pick between poison that has the potential to kill you, and an option to not take any poison"
>>534130781idk anon, candidate B sounds like a fascist under this logic. so I guess I'm voting for candidate B.he sounds like he's willing to get stuff done.
>>534131870anon she's not real and she's not going to risk her life if she was
>>534131282It really is a brilliant thought experiment that reveals a lot about a person. Some are calling it buttonslop, and I can understand the fatigue, but this dilemma really cuts to the core regarding the spiritual divide in society. It has made me rethink any kind of political discussion in general, since a devoted redfag like myself will never see eye to eye with a bluefag, since we are approaching every topic from a completely different spiritual foundations, so discussing any topic regarding society with them is a complete waste of breath at the end of the day.I think I will likely come here less now, and touch even more grass. Debate is for bluefags, redfags are in their element when they're enjoying life, and I am probably just wasting my limited time on Earth here with these people, but old habits die hard.
>>534130271> humanity diesThis is happening anyway. Things can't really get any worse, but a major shake up could fix things.
>>534131986People read “press this everyone lives”and “press that it will cause death” so they press the one that says it will save everyone
>>534131870Blue gf is a small minority on the global scale. You're just gonna have to accept that you can't save her. You can live, or you can join her in death.
>>534132157>“press that it will cause death”that's blue
>>534131929I don't understand your post.Adding the option of "choose to take poison under gunpoint" doesn't change the posited scenario at all.If you elect to take poison, it's suicide. If it's under gunpoint, it's still suicide.The closest real life example I can give to this is the phrase "suicide by cop".
>>534130781That's not what it's like at all because you're reducing the importance of the (lack of) agency implied in the question. What is your answer to this >>534130393
>>534132186Or you realize that the only way to not punish good hearted people is to press blue Will get rid of the sweetest people alive
>>534127580guess why i quit social media
>>534132212That’s not what is saysIt’s really too hard to understand that they only see what is written?
>>534132048>I think I will likely come here less now, and touch even more grass. Debate is for bluefags, redfags are in their element when they're enjoying lifeSmall disagreement. I believe it's a matter of youth. Redfags flock to such things when young to attempt to sharpen their beliefs, meanwhile blue simply never grows up. As age happens, red has "graduated" from the wisdom of discourse, meanwhile blue is unable to recognize that it's late and he should probably leave the classroom because no one else has told him to yet.
>>534132276You are not going to outvote the third world. The blue button will cull the pathologically selfless among us, and you're just gonna have to accept that.
>>534131030This is a common fallacy that comes from a lack of mathematical ability. As the size of vote increases, the number of people killed also increases at a roughly equal rate. The average number of people you kill stays roughly the same.>>534131207>At least you accept that red can never be considered murder.It is equally valid to consider red as murder as to consider blue as suicide.>this is what blue is doing when putting themselves in harm's wayIt would be equally valid to say that red put them in harms way. The neural view is that the butter creator put everyone in harm's way, then the question is how to minimise harm, which usually produces blue as the correct answer.>>534131392The downside to pressing red is that people will die.>>534131748>THERE IS NO GREATER PAYOUT.Consult the game theory image and calculate the payouts. You will see blue greater than red depending on the test taker's personal values.
>>534132410I’d rather be dead with the blue pressers than live among reds
If youre just realizing half the population of Western nations are retarded jewraped goyslave NPCs, you haven't been paying attention.
>>534127639fpbpthese kikes are really pushing this garbage this week
>>534130619This has nothing to do with that, dumbass. The people who press blue are just as likely to be your family
>>534132234I'm just making sure everyone is fully aware that red can never be considered murder, because that seems to be a common theme among blues.
You can get rid of the red button and the thought experiment will still remain the same.
>>534132554Exactly
>>534132383>blue simply never grows up. As age happens, red has "graduated" from the wisdom of discourse
>>534132355That is what it says.
>>534130271>if i dont press blue someone else willCuts both ways
>>534132467>I’d rather be dead with the blue pressers than live among redsthats the whole point and the whole choice
>>534132434>It is equally valid to consider red as murder as to consider blue as suicide.No it is not, since red is not electing to risk their lives.>It would be equally valid to say that red put them in harms way. Nope
>>534132276They’re not sweet they’re retarded narcissists who want to make themselves look good and kind. It’s a completely unnecessary risk that fucks over everyone and everything for no reason. Pressing red prevents that and the only reason one would press blue is if they’re either too dumb to understand or want to look good for other people.
>>534132467Then go die, you performative feminine sleaze.DAILY REMINDERDURING STUDIES WHERE OBSERVING PEOPLE PLAYING A GAME, WHEREIN SOME WERE CHEATING AND SOME WERE PLAYING FAIR, THE PLAYERS WERE SUBJECTED TO RANDOM ELECTRIC SHOCKS>WHEN FAIR PLAYERS SHOCKED, WOMEN FELT EMPATHY>SO DID MEN>WHEN CHEATERS SHOCKED, WOMEN STILL FELT EMPATHY>MEN FELT PLEASUREFeminine males are cancer and feminine rationale is faulty and performative.It is a good thing that you would be culled.
which button to press to beat the person that posts cognitohazard-level scissor statements on twitter to death with a crowbar?
>>534132632Repeat the words next to each button, not the meaning
>>534132434>The average number of people you kill stays roughly the same.Indeed pressing red kills exactly zero people no matter what
>>534132434>The downside to pressing red is that people will die.That's why I'm pressing it. I don't see that as a downside
>>534132595You need to give bluefags a scapegoat to curse with their dying breath or else their performative savior complex bullshit sacrifice won't mean anything
>>534132434>It is equally valid to consider red as murder as to consider blue as suicide.No it isn't and you just logically admitted that but you don't even realize. When you change the fundamentals of the hypothetical so that i'm the last persont to vote, and i know exactly what my vote will do once cast with no threat to myself, then it can be considered murder. Again, that's a completely different scenario to what's being discussed.>It would be equally valid to say that red put them in harms waya pointless statement for you to make then> then the question is how to minimise harmthe guaranteed safety option
>>534132695Go ahead kill your mom then
having >50% blue pressers is way easier and more plausible than having 100% red pressers.just press the blue button my little chud. we can save everyone. you don't have to be scared of society.
>>534132595
>>534132383Yeah, that's pretty well said. Maturity is the realisation that debate is pointless and a waste of life, and I'm getting too old for this shit. If Charlie Kirk's death (whom I wasn't even a fan of, but that's not the point), and the reaction from the left didn't wake you up to the futility of debate, I don't know what will.Just to be clear, I don't consider bluefags my enemy. I am happy to be friends with them in real life, but we are simply never coming to an agreement on most serious topics, and we're just gonna have to learn to appreciate each other's differences. I would just really prefer it if they stopped voting for demographically suicidal policies, but I am powerless to stop them from that as well, so whatever.
>>534132743Next to red it says you live. Next to blue it says you die unless a majority picks blue.
>>534132830red pressers don't want to save anyone. they want to get people killed
>>534132830Good to see that there are people willing to uphold good in this world.
>>534132830joker is the guy who forced people to engage with it, he's not pressing anything you retarded favelado
>>534130393The one who forced people to vote and potentially get executed in the first place in a horror movie dilemma. >>534131086I vote blue knowing I can't guarantee anything in the first place.Since it was a private sudden vote that involves everyone on earth, including children, there is automatically a chance that people/loved ones, whether on accident or overthinking their morals will pick blue.
>>534132830the point of blue button is to force people who dont want to live to live.
>>534130788>I'll be waiting in the afterlifeNo, youre gonna rot and bloat up and sti k and Imma have to drag your carcass out into the brush and bury it lest the animals get at what's left of you.There is no afterlife. Some part of you may move on, but it shall have no recollection of this place, of being retarded meat, and the fact that you thought it would is a big part of what makes you retarded: You believe in things without evidence on the basis of ancient myths and you think thats a virtue.Well, you did. Now youre just wormhole.I hope I dont stink like your rotten refuse when I go home to see my wife and kids.
>>534132929you must be fun at parties
>>534132826>implying she is retarded enough to press blue>implying i would careAppealing to emotion is all you faggots have, I am not going to fucking kill myself because someone else was retarded be they family or friend, you trying to frame this as a bad thing is never going to work because no one has to press the blue button it is literally the only button where there is some chance of death and only people who are willing to die will push it and in the end are only doing it to feed their own egos.
>>534132826My mom wouldn't push that button, she's not a performative retard, despite being feminine.
>>534132948It's baby steps with you guys, if you can accept that red can never be considered murder, that's good enough for now
>>534132987This. Red is the compassionate choice.
>>534133006snarky blue surrenderas predictable as the sun rising
>>534132839The problem is, THEY TIED THEMSELVES TO THE TRACKS, even when it should have been obvious they didnt have to.Why did they do it?There is no answer which does not boil down to performative faulty ideology.
A Jeet throws himself in front of a trainDo you throw yourself to save him? Mind you, the train will only stop if you and 50% of the world also throw themselves in front of it. Do you do it ?
>>534133033You will live in a world of selfish autists Enjoy
>>534133128how will the juggernaut impact my izzar sar, then i can be telling you
>>534132434>This is a common fallacy that comes from a lack of mathematical ability. As the size of vote increases, the number of people killed also increases at a roughly equal rate. The average number of people you kill stays roughly the same.Strawman. You didn't adress my point that my individual vote has practically no power on a global scale.
>>534132924>get his morals from Hollywood Jewish coded
>>534132948>there is automatically a chance that people/loved ones, whether on accident or overthinking their morals will pick blueLet them die.The fact that they made a bad decision means, in your mind, YOU should make THE SAME BAD DECISION is utterly retarded and demonstrates youre just acting performatively, in this case risking your life, your entire existence, for the theoretical possibility of saving retarded children you've never met.Pure idiocy and egotism.
>>534133136It’s not selfish, what is selfish it to risk death just to try and show what a good person you are. Imagine dying and leaving your family and friends behind all so you could let a bunch of random retards know you are totally a good and moral person. That’s not altruism that’s not morality it’s just hollow preening masked as it.
>>534129711Actually, they press blue.blue = taking vax (to save grandma and forcing others to do it too, otherwise they lose)red = antivax (not taking the poisonous injections and continuing to mind your own business)
>>534131279You, and your kin, contributed to it though and cumulatively built that risk profile through your actions. I'm advocating for voting red, retard.
>>534132595>there is a red button, you can press it, but if more than half of people do, then those who didn't will die.You can remove either button. Active vs. passive participation is just a moral illusion that causes the bystander effect. People with this logic are the dumb Indians who watch people down in pools.
>>534133269It is because you KNOW good hearted people will press blue and you decide to kill them
>>534129381>>534131462>>534129983>>534129756>>534129711>>534129522cleaner image
>>534132826I have 2 kids with opposite favorite colors. Do i press blue and chance the other one that pressed red to live alone in the so called hellsacpe red pressers leave behind?
>>534132948>I vote blue knowing I can't guarantee anything in the first place.You can guarantee your own life and align your voting pattern with what, when generalized, minimizes needless deaths. That's what red does. I would vote in accordance with this.
>>534132830Well, I am Dah Jokah Baybee, so I guess you got me. We do indeed live in a society.
>>534133411The only way to save both is to press blue
>>534133385I just said how they’re not good hearted and all you can do is just keep repeating how they are without addressing what I said or actually explaining how it’s good.
>>534127580I would like to live in a high trust society where I know what everyone else is going to pick, regardless of whether it's red or blue.
>>534129480>let me change the scenario so it makes me look good
>>534133411If someone is functionally incapable of understanding the decision it effectively invalidates the point if the exercise.If youre throwing in there "oh well people with brain damage and 3 y/o children get to vote and have no coaching nor explanation!" just creates the grounds for the performative faggotry of blue to APPEAR less performative, "oh but think of the children!" type maudlin bullshit.The intent of the exercise is to see what people who can actually understand the choice are gonna choose. And in such case, if you can understand the choice and still choose blue, you are ideologically retarded.
>>534133519Cool. I would like to fly like Peter Pan.
>>534133475What if blue doesnt win?
It's a good litmus test for if you're utterly atomized and will sell your friends and family out for a 100% guarantee of survival. This is a social engineering question, and the proof they needed is a not insignificant proportion of people don't care about what happens to others, are isolated and atomized. It's just more proof that they can act with impunity because no one will put themselves at risk to stand up for others. In fact, they'll do all the hard work of justifying why doing nothing is in fact moral.
>>534127580>be me>go on /nupol/ several times a day >every time is a thread created by a newfag memeflag pushing offtopic forced meme faggot
>>534133256>Let them die.So you're aware people may potentially vote blue, yet you still vote red. If you're aware that one person will vote blue, why not just vote for blue and contribute in saving them?
>>534128030Vaxtards during COVID didn't already clue you into this fact?
>>534132689Murderers do not always risk their lives.>NopeWhy not?>>534132767It kills half the world in some cases. Consult the game theory chart from earlier.>>534132807It's not a rewording, it's one of the three cases you must consider. See the game theory chart from earlier. I'm real fucking tired of you people not knowing maths.>>534133209When you do the maths, individual votes have more power as the population size increases. This is because the number of people affected grows slightly faster than the chances of the vote being split 50/50.
>>534127639based chuddie
>>534129480You can't change the game with the labels. If you want to make red look bad while still keeping the logic of the game the same, try something like this:Blue button: everyone lives unless more than 50 % of people press the red buttonRed button: kill everyone who pressed the blue button unless more than 50 % of people pressed it
>>534128037haha, nice
>>534133705>It's a good litmus test for if you're utterly atomized and will sell your friends and family out for a 100% guarantee of survival.No, its a good litmus test to see if you believe your family and friends are retarded.I dont know ANYONE who would choose blue given the circumstances, no member of my family, no friend or acquaintance, because everyone I know - and care about - lacks the performative egotistical ideological drive to martyr themselves for total strangers who might theoretically push the button.
>>534133771>It's not a rewordingNot rewording, complete restructuring of the premise that one person gets explicit, real time knowledge and can know for certain what his vote is going to do. You are completely retarded.
>>534128030You'll understand when you turn 19, sport.
>>534129381The numbers don't lie and they spell disaster for you.
>>534133761>So you're aware people may potentially vote blue, yet you still vote red. Absolutely.>If you're aware that one person will vote blue, why not just vote for blue and contribute in saving them?Natural selection.I do not value all life as sacred - if tou make a bad decision, knowing the likely outcome, I do not have sympathy for you.Because Im not a fucking woman.>>534132724Mind you, EVEN WOMEN are not that retarded by the numbers I suspect - for most, self interest (and the resultant connected interests of family and friends, none of whom would be so retarded as to risk their self and connected interests on such a gamble) outweighs their feminine egotistical ideological drive to self terminate in dramatic and emotional martyrdom for strangers.
>>534133411We live in a hellscape right now. Pretty much entirely due to the people who would press blue.
>>534130788This poor woman could have been saved from herself if women didn't have the right to vote.So much senseless death and suffering!
>>534133891Okay, there are three cases. The first one is that the vote is red, the second is that it's blue, and the third is that it's split 50/50. To get the expected outcome, you have to consider all three cases. I'm not excluding the other two, just pointing out that you must consider the third.>>534134014The original image covers the case where you don't care about other people. Read harder.
>>534133771>It kills half the world in some cases. Consult the game theory chart from earlier.It doesn't though, because - contrary to claims - I do not believe any really large contingent would press blue.And the contingent that would is people I view as detrimental in eugenics ideological terms.
>>534127639It's not a false dichotomy, but rewriting it to remove the superfluous button really exposed how dumb a hypothetical it is.The red button is basically the status quo/inaction. It doesn't put you at risk of anything, but the fact that there are two buttons makes dumb people unable to process what this really is. You can replace it with nothing and keep the stakes/outcomes the exact same:>Everyone on earth is presented with a button. You can either not press the button and nothing will happen to you, or you can press it and you will die unless the majority presses the button with you.If you ran that poll, I really doubt you'd get more than a few percent of people voting for pressing it, even though it's the exact same fucking thing with the "do nothing" button replaced with an actual "do nothing" option.
>>534132554no they aren't dumbass5/8billion chance they're my family (8bill - 5)/8billion chance they are not my family
>>534134129This was also covered in the chart at the bottom.
>>534132434>The downside to pressing red is that people will die.People who deliberately pressed the Russian Roulette button might die... is a downside... how?
>>534128030>People are shitHow old are you? Did it really take you this long to figure it out? Did you not go to highschool? Have you never driven on a expressway? People achieve great things precisely because they figure this out early and focus on acquiring skills and assets to fulfill their goals.
>>534127580>>534127639All this fake shit is to force goyim to choose a side. So when the time comes, and the antichrist is here, people will choose him/her without thinking.It was made by jews and I am not surprised Assofgold is the one propagating it around the normies.
>>534128030So you're just a redditor and you don't understand numbers or society or anything like that>Risking my life to save people!You aren't saving anyone by pressing blue, just risking your life to do nothing. You'd have to be that one singular vote in billions to be the one that saves anyone, otherwise blue is literally just suicide for nothing. It's the same thing with voting. It's the same thing with being a zogbot. It's literally dying for nothing because you need to be the one guy who changes something for it to matter, and the odds of that are one in billions.>>534130191>I will die to decrease the risk to my loved ones >Of .0000000001%Same logic as vaxxtards, and then you find out your relatives chose red and actually now you're the person who's dead because you committed suicide, oops.This is what redditors don't get, you are a living person right now and picking suicide isn't a good move for your family, actually. If you have loved ones why would your move ever be to kill yourself for an infinitely small probability of success? OK now you're dead and they're alive redditor, so now they starve and ask themselves why you abandoned them and couldn't protect them.>I will save the people I love>By suicideNo you're just suicidal and justifying it. Just do some fentanyl at least if you want to die, don't try to moralfag me on it.
This is a test of suicidal empathy. It's a stupid question, but it does tell you a lot about the world. Whatif scenarios like "what if your family" or "girlfriend" pressed the blue button doesn't matter because it's not part of the original question.
>>534127580>try to change the world and die for people that don't even give a shit about themselves on a atomic level>let the clown world rule and keep the circus going while isolating yourself with either material/spiritual gain and still slowly lose your sanity due have to been exposed to the reality of thingsThere's no winning this
>>534134119>you have to consider all three casesThey were considered and the conclusion is that it's impossible to know, because there is no way to logically deduce the % chance of dying because you hit blue. When you explicitly add knowledge, you change that. How do you not understand this?
>>534129381If the goal of the game is to maximize the number of survivors, I think there is no Nash equilibrium because you save 50 % of people in one case by picking blue, but you save 1 person in 50 % of cases by picking red. If the goal of the game is just for you to win, the red is the only Nash equilibrium.
I think blue button pushers are operating under the mistaken belief that their vote will matter whatsoever.With over 8 billion voters, and no hard information on likely voting numbers, the chance of you voting blue mattering is about the same chance of your laptop randomly levitating from thermodynamic fluctuations.Practically 0.So you're basically risking a ~50-99% chance of death, for a 0.0000000001% chance that your vote matters.
>>534130440This is reverse uno ideology. "SO, *SMACKS LIPS* I CAN *GRABS DICKS* KILL SOME MUGFUCKAHS *ELECTRIC SLIDE INTO A GRANDMA* IF I PRESS DA RED?!""SHEEEEEEIT"
You are all pathetic for obsessing this much over a random tweet
https://poal.me/mu7mc7
>>534134522they aren't connected to rational thought, it's always clear when interacting with them.
>>534131925Glorifying suicide and self-sacrifice, and yes, most people actually are this cucked.>Paying property taxes to help MUH CHILLINS go to skoolThis is a form of economic suicide where your loss does nothing in the grand scheme of things but people still support it because it does .000001% of a good thing>Charity for people you don't knowDoes nothing but people still do it, another form of suicide>The blue buttonA form of suicide where you don't do the above things but instead say you're a HECKIN GOOD PERSON for changing the odds an incalculable amount that you can't be told before, because that's just how it is, kill yourself for uncertain gain (or even a loss if you die and your loved ones are left alone, OOPS, looks like suicide wasn't the play)So uhhhhhh, yeah diversity is just cultural suicide in the name of "charity" and oops the world is just worse off when the best cultures and countries in the world commit suicide.
>>534127580if we could discuss it before hand the whole world would agree to press red and anyone who wants to an hero easily can press blue
>>534134582you're the most pathetic because no one is forcing you to discuss it, some people just like talking about philosophy.
>>534127639
>>534134249Your family is not selected randomly from the population of 8 billion people. They are the same people in any case.>>534134344Does it not at all concern you that almost all evil people follow this same logic of “the people are killed are probably deserving”?>>534134457That's the point of the test, as you can see in the image from earlier. It is a test of if you value other's lives and trust them to do the same.>>534134474It depends on what you think other people will do. Though interestingly, the effect of split votes seems to increase with population size at a logarithmic rate, so it may also depend on how many people are playing the game. Specifically more people playing makes blue more attractive.For instance a 3 person game has a 0.5 chance of tying outside your vote, which would mean you can save one person at a utility of 1*0.5=0.5, but a four person game has a 3/8 chance of tying where you can save two people, so the utility is 3/8*2 = 0.75. The utility of blue rises as game size increases.
>>534133665You're wrong, it's part of the poll. the guy clarified when asked, and it's in the question anyway, 'everyone in the world'. Without these people, the question is a lot more straightforward (red).the fact that everyone is forced to vote gives some credence to the blue position, but I still think red is optimal to avoid risking 49% deaths in worst case outcome.
>>534134522Hard pragmatism demonstrating the fault of pushing Blue once again.Whats funny is, I suspect most of the people who SAY they would push Blue would actually push Red when the theoretical moment arrives, and the people who resigned lying press Red as the obvious correct and pragmatic choice would be the ones actually likely to have even considered pushing Blue in real terms.
>>534134474>>534134701*5 person game in the second case, where there are 4 other people.
>>534133705There two arks for the world to choose from. One is rigged with explosive and will explode unless half the world gets on it. The other is a normal ark. It's pretty obvious any non-retard wold get on the non-explosive ark.
>>534133771>When you do the maths, individual votes have more power as the population size increases. This is because the number of people affected grows slightly faster than the chances of the vote being split 50/50.Sure, if we're assuming every single person in the world is an abstract coin toss and that I am the only one with agency, but that is not the situation. In the button scenario, the vast majority of people who vote will come from low-trust societies, where the mere thought of risking their lives by pressing blue to save people they have never even met will not even cross their minds. That is the great mass of red presses I am up against as a potential bluefag, and that's why my vote has next to no power. The blue button will simply cull the suicidally selfless white people, and I am powerless to stop it.
>>534133771>Murderers do not always risk their lives.OK? Doens't have anything to do with what I said. Blue made the gamble. If they lose, it's not red's fault.
>>534134522Your vote is more effective in larger elections. See the maths here: >>534134701
>>534127639Based. Imagine pushing some little gay buttons.
>>534134701>It is a test of if you value other's livesI can't value anyone's life if I don't exist. This isn't a pure test to see if someone would value another's life because it incorporates their own well being.All of my logic stands undefeated, it's not my burden if you still fail to comprehend.
>>534134701>Does it not at all concern you that almost all evil people follow this same logic of “the people are killed are probably deserving”?Does your retarded niggerbabble make me suddenly care about people who get themselves killed doing retarded unnecessary risky bullshit? No.
>>534134714>Without these people, the question is a lot more straightforward (red).Exactly - absent the ridiculous justification of "THINK ABOUT RANDOM CHILDREN WHO MIGHT PUSH BLUE BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY DONT HAVE ANY CONCOET OF WHATS HAPPENING! OR THE MENTALLY RETARDED OH WHAT IF YOUR MOM HAPPENS TO BE DRUNK WHEN VOTING, WHAT THEN!?!" bullshit its a very straightforward question.Adding in those who functionally cannot understand the choice just gives a shroud to the performative feminine martyr complex that is Blue pusher mindset, mudding the water in a way that turns the question into a truly pointless exercise in performative ball fanning faux-moralism.
>>534134727true. in the polls blue wins, but if this actually happened, red would win; and those who polled blue but pressed red would still not see their hypocrisy
>>534130245>Self interest vs the worldIt's not like this at all, you have to be the deciding vote for any of this to matter.In a vacuum I'm not gonna be that guy who kills himself to do nothing and it would be foolish to do so, lack of information makes me take the safe pick. Without additional information that's just suicide.>But it could not be you could be the change!I don't even know the change probability.So I could die or I could not, and I choose not to die, not enough information to risk anything.This is just a bad gamble, you have a dollar to put into a machine but they don't publish their odds, is it a good gamble? No, they didn't publish their odds.
>>534134842How exactly is it blue voters' fault if blue loses? It seems like red voters were the only ones who could prevent this. This pointless bullshit is why assigning blame is not useful. Everyone could do something to change the outcome, so any individual group can be arbitrarily selected as the target of blame.
>presses blue buttonim a good person
>>534134912All value is relative. It is not a test of value if there is not counterweight.
>>534134701>Does it not at all concern you that almost all evil people follow this same logic of “the people are killed are probably deserving”?Does it cross your mind thats also the same logic if almost all good people as well?>Yes, I killed him, he was a child rapist murderer.>>FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS AND I DID NOT SPEAK UP BECAUSE I WAS NOT A JEW, THEN THEY CAME FOR...That's what you sound like.You might as well ask if its concerning that every "evil" - a totally subjective concept - person also drank water and breathed air.
Voting blue doesn't make you the "sweetest person alive" or naive/trusting/innocent at all actually. There's an implicit assumption. In fact, if you are the first person to press blue, and someone else presses blue to say you, and then an n+2th person presses blue to save them, all the way up to the 49.999999th% person, but red wins and these people all diethen in fact, the original blue person is responsible for approximately half of the planet dying. Which may have been their intention. If you convince 40% of the population to kill themselves with you, are you a good, empathetic person or are you a Jonestown-tier mass murderer?
>>534127580>you must pick a side!!!No ill just punch the Jewish person asking me the question in the face. Then throw both buttons in the trash. Zoomers and Gen A are too young and dumb to know this is a Jewish playbook 101. Divide wherever you can
>>534134931You're missing the point. That's part of the question, though, which is what makes it a point of discussion. If red was just objectively superior, it wouldn't be discussed and divided as much.You're attacking the question now, and the parts of the question that make it divisive are the parts that make it viral for this reason. In that sense, it's the only interesting part of the question. Without this, it's just >would you like to risk death for no reason?Which is obviously not a very lively discussion. Everything interesting about the question comes from the part you want to discard.
>>534128037Since the red button doesn't do anything and is just a spare, might as well remove it.
>>534134960Basically to dumb it down for retards here who really don't understand numbers>Certain reward (you live)>Chance of death - unknownEvery other strawman just goes out the window, until the odds are published or you can make some reasonable guess it's a bad gamble to gamble 100,000 dollars on blue. The casino didn't publish their odds and you could just lose all your money.Now that's your life, it's a bad choice to gamble your life on blue because the odds weren't published and you don't know what will happen, but you have a sure chance of a payout (you live) with red.With a complete lack of information deciding to gamble your life away is suicide and there's no other way to describe it. Give me some odds / numbers and I can tell you whether the gamble is justified but gambling for NOTHING, no published odds, no information at all? Extremely retarded, you wouldn't do it with your life savings so why do it with your life?
>>534135109>why is it blues fault that they have to suffer the consequences of their actionsSeriously? They made their choice, everyone else made theirs.
>>534135177>Does it cross your mind thats also the same logic if almost all good people as well?Not really. Good people tend to view murder as only justified if it prevents further killing.>>534135363They are also suffering the consequences of other people's choices.
>>534135250its literally just a different version of the trolly question. its just hypothetical. i doubt its going to cause any real dvision like feminism, lgbtism, race or religion. its not that deep bro.
>>534135136And you are not a good person
>retard decides to drink poisoned koolaid>only way it won't kill him is if he convinces enough retards to drink poisoned koolaid with him>he calls you a bad person and a third worlder if you don't drink the poisoned koolaid with himlol
>>534135295>Would you risk death for no reason?That's the whole question, that's what it's asking.>>534135356No published odds. I wouldn't put 100,000 in a machine with no published odds, so without the odds there's no reason to make that gamble. Let me seen the odds and a decision can be made. There's no reason to put that money in the machine if I don't know the payout.
>>534135347true, the question could easily just be if people pressed the blue button or not
>>534134701>It depends on what you think other people will do. Though interestingly, the effect of split votes seems to increase with population size at a logarithmic rate, so it may also depend on how many people are playing the game. Specifically more people playing makes blue more attractive.I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. There is only 1 outcome where the vote is tied precisely 50/50. And there are precisely half as many outcomes as there are people such that going from red to blue kills you. You save half of everyone in that one case, but you lose your life in half as many cases as there are people. The expected value is therefore zero. I believe you're thinking this in terms of a binomial distribution where everyone randomly chooses what button they press, but I don't think that makes a difference.
>>534135397>They are also suffering the consequences of other people's choices.No, the alternative was risk free and they were given the opportunity to select it. It's illogical and irrational to blame the votes on the other side for the risk they elected to take.
There is no reason to press blue, simple as. When I read a question I was tempting to go on blue probably because of how question is framed, blue save, red kill, automatic good and bad and I'm a good guy. Most ppl instant chose I think that's why there are blue, but if u stop for a sec and think, there is zero reason for anyone to die if we all just press red.
>>534135474No, it's not. Read farther up the conversation chain. The logical rationale for voting blue is to 'save' the handicapped voters, like children, who didn't fully understand the question. So blue voters are compelled to vote blue in order to save them.In other words, there is a reason the blue voters risk death.
>>534135469We.... we have to all have sex. I pushed the "poison everyone and sex is the only cure" button, now you have to have sex with me or you're immoral or I die.So what if you're 9, it would be murder if you didn't, BRO, what if my family members were gonna die bro you'd better have sex with me or everyone dies.Literally the same thing.Oh here's anotherBRO you have to give me all your money I pressed the "everyone dies if you don't give me your money" button now you have to give me your money or everyone dies. No, you can't just opt out by pressing the red button, you have to gamble. You wouldn't want someone else to have to have sex with me or die, would you?
>>534135295Im not missing the point, Im pointing out that the point in question is fucking stupid.>If red was just objectively superior, it wouldn't be discussed and divided as much.Thats you making an assumption, which is that the Blue pushers would view it as"objectively superior" if adjusted thusly, AND THATS WHERE IT FALLS APART: They likely would claim thats not the case. Even absent the smokescreen of retards and children and drunk people, most of them would STILL claim Blue wad the right choice.>You're attacking the question now, and the parts of the question that make it divisive are the parts that make it viral for this reason. Yeah, see, you are missing the point: You are drastically over-estimating the impact of that change on Blue pushers choice.>Everything interesting about the question comes from the part you want to discard.Negative, it actually diminishes its value as a test, IMHO.It basically becomes>would you risk you life to save a bunch of retards, children and other people who through injury, disease or intoxication are potentially incapable of understanding the questionAs opposed to>would you risk your life for other people willing to risk their lives in being (nominally) hyper-compassionateThough either way it really just amounts to>do you have an ideologically induced performative martyr complexAnd the children/retards/etc just give them the perfect faux-moralistic smokescreen for the actual behavior on display.
>>534134474You're atomizing your actions inside of the game. It's clearly more complicated than that. You have to consider the behaviors of the other players in the game. Is this a game with no communication? Then red becomes more of a viable choice. with communication? Blue increasingly becomes more of a viable choice.
>>534135606Keep children away from the hot stove.Keep children away from high ledgesKeep children away from suicide buttons.
>>534135295Indeed, the original question was worded in a very opaque way to obfuscate what the buttons actually do, making it sound like the blue button is the save button and the red button is the murder button. Regardless, red is still the wise choice, because if the question fools most people into thinking the blue button is the safe and kind option, then the foolish bluefags will still have their safety in numbers, as will the high IQ redfag who actually understood the question, but is a small minority.If most people are fooled into thinking the blue button is the correct choice, everything will be fine, and smart people can still press red and rest easy knowing the bluefags have their safety in numbers. Pressing red is always the correct choice.
>>534135606>There is a reasonThere's not because you don't know the risk, without knowing that there can be no reason and only illogical emotion.>Red100% chance>BlueCompletely unknownTherefore no reason for blue and there can't be one. Dude, put 100,000 in that casino machine, no I can't tell you the odds but if you don't spend your 100,000 I might lose my 100,000.That's no reason, even if the most disabled ugly retard or even a whole school of disabled retards all would lose 100,000 dollars I am not putting my money in the "no odds published" machine because I lack critical information - the odds - and without that I cannot accept risk of my life or my 100k.
>>534127580Why are jews spamming this red and blue button so much here? for what purpose?
>>534135690No cooperation is implicitly assumed, I think. With communication, it makes no difference what button you pick. Everyone just agrees on either one. At least when talking about game theory, you're assuming that every player is rational and does what's best for them. In real life, you'd of course converge to the blue button to account for the retards who fail cooperate and might accidentally kill themselves if everyone agreed to press red.
>>534135250I get where you're coming from, but the button question is not something that is dividing society further than it already is, it's just highlighting why there is a divide in the first place.
>>534135397>Not really. Yes really.>Good people Your definition for such is by-definition subjective. There is no objective good and evil.To one group, a good person is someone who offers low-interest loans to minority groups in his community, in others the very idea of charging interests is a sin.l, in others aiding minority outgroups is a sin, etc.>tend to view murder as only justified if it prevents further killing.And they will use that to justify all kinds of shit, thats the point my guy.Every person thay justifies killing justifies it on the basis of the other person warranting it. Good, evil, subjective concepts though they may be, the end result is the same: People kill other people and justify it by suggesting the other person warranted it.Every person you consider good, every person you consider evil, who ever justified killing someone, did so on the basis they deserved it.
>>534135645Not sure if you're even reading what I'm saying.. I think it's a fair assumption to say the poll would've garnered far less attention if it could be solved objectively in a logical or mathematical fashion. It would simply a trick question in that case, with an objectively correct 'right' and 'wrong' answer (red being correct).>would you risk your life for other people willing to risk their lives in being (nominally) hyper-compassionateIt doesn't reduce to this, since there's no logical reason to risk lives if there isn't some mindless population present in the poll selecting blue. This is what compels people to vote blue. Without this motive, the incentive is gone as there's no hypothetical gain to selecting blue.While I do suspect some of the blue population is just retarded and would still vote blue in either case, the question sustains interest exactly because it's not simply a trick question or gotcha.
>>534135250It's actually very important to show newniggers how suicidal empathy is not good, and also to show them that this is what our society runs on.>Gibs>Diversity>Feminism>Sexual liberationAll prime examples of suicidal empathy
>>534135852Then it's needlessly simplifying politics into a mathematical problem, without any consideration for either of the political parties actual collective stances' effects. By simplifying politics, we can essentially make it look like Republicans murder and Democrats save, but in actuality it's the reverse. If I choose a majority of Democratic policies inflation gets much worse because of the rapidity of spreading more USD into the economy and the increased velocity of transactions, thus rendering your post invalid, and likely just more propaganda.
There is ZERO logical reason to ever press the blue button. Anyone who presses the blue button is just a complete fucking moron. >Wahhh, but I want to virtue signal my performative suicidal faux empathy to save the heckin' niggerinos who are too stupid to press the right button!You "save" all of those retards by telling them that there is no good reason to press the blue button and no good reason to NOT press the red button. This whole thing is so fucking retarded. It's like having some tall bridge somewhere, and there are fences and barriers everywhere to try to stop people from jumping, and signs telling people if they are thinking about jumping to call 1-800-GET-HELP or whatever, and therapists at the bottom of the bridge begging people to not jump off the bridge, and literally all you have to do is just not climb up the bridge and then jump off.But then you have this group of morons who think that they need to go up on the bridge and climb up on the rail seriously risking their own life, because they think if enough people do that, it will save whatever morons might try to jump anyway.
>>534135109The blue voter knew what would happen and still took the risk. That's why it's their fault. Your attempting to absolve them of responsibility. No. They could have chosen red, like the red voters, but they didn't. They chose blue.
>>534136112>I think it's a fair assumption to sayYou are wrong and are failing to understand what youre observing.You are assuming everyone is a rational actor, but the very point of the experiment is that they are not, and will take destructive actions on the basis of irrational emotional feminine performative martyrdom complexes - or at least, they say they will when asked out it.> the poll would've garnered far less attention if it could be solved objectivelyAgain: You are making the assumption that removing those who cannot or do not understand the question from the pool will massively change the Blue pushers minds and I think that speaks to you not grasping why they make the choice they do.As evidenced here:>It doesn't reduce to this, since there's no logical reason to They are not acting logically, they are acting ideologically.
>>534135606I would explain to my children of why to press the red button and they'd listen.Terrible tragedy if a kid presses blue, but I'm not going to sacrifice my life if someone can't parent their kids right, cause I have my own kids to take care of and depriving them of a father to virtue signal would be immoral.>>534135611
>>534135696The premise of the question is that they don't have a choice in this hypothetical, which is what compels blue voters to risk it.>>534135759>There's not because you don't know the risk, without knowing that there can be no reason and only illogical emotion.You can safely assume the risk is non-zero as some voters, like children or the mentally handicapped will essentially be random-walking between red and blue.>Therefore no reason for blue and there can't be one. Yes, there is, Whether you agree with the rationale or not is a different question. Blue voters are willing to make the risk without knowing the probability of success.If you would stop and read the comment chain you're replying to, you'd see I agree with red. What I'm clarifying for some is the motivating force for voting blue, which is to increase collective risk in order to save the (undoubtedly minority) population of truly handicapped voters like children who could not discern the logically optimal choice (red) and would otherwise be victims in this scenario.IMHO, even considering that, red is still optimal and has better expected value given the unknown probability of blue success.
>>534136360But right there you would want to save your own children yes? So lets think about whether you want to save other people's children. Because they may not have the caring parent that you are. In this case, you still tell your children to press the red button, or do you choose to contribute to trying to get everyone to press the blue button to save other lives?Or are you not willing to take that risk and tell your children to vote red, while you vote blue, thus rendering your choice invalid?I would say this is why most people would choose blue with communication.
>>534127580most people don’t know that the original game this is copied from had a red button threshold where everyone just dies, like 70 or 80%so everyone just has to push red was never an option that part was removed because few would openly admit they’re genuinely fine with others dying
>>534135153>All value is relative.It's not enough to have me defeat you in argument, you have to defeat yourself it seems
>>534136112To expound:>This is what compels people to vote blue.Nope. What compels them to vote Blue is performative feminine ideology.Your failure to grasp that is exacerbated and abetted by the very smokescreen I was talking about, and I think its a fair assumption that removing the mindless group would have negligible impact upon Blues - they arent really worried about those people anyway. They want to be seen as benevolent and "good", and their ideology suggests that self sacrifice is noble asf, thus they would still hit Blue, because "what if my mom does because she is willing to risk her life to ensure nobody dies? She's such a good noble woman! I have to vote Blue too!".They arent acting logically or rationally, they're reacting like fucking trained seals to stimuli.
>>534136160>By simplifying politics, we can essentially make it look like Republicans murder and Democrats saveI actually think it's more complicated than that. I think the vast majority of preachy leftists would not press blue when the chips are down and their life is on the line. I think the demographic with the highest risk of mass deaths from the blue button are true believer Christians, who are convinced of an eternal afterlife, and that group is strongly conservative.This is something I have never wondered before, but I genuinely wonder which button Matt Walsh would push.
>>534136476>The risk is non-zeroFor who, I have my 100k and I'm not putting it in the machine until I know the odds.>Other people put their money in though!They shouldn't of done that then they didn't know their odds, but I don't have to sacrifice my retirement to save them.Boom I just removed the emotion and you're retarded. There's no risk.>Read the comment chainNo.>Collective risk or whateverNot a real thing because you don't know odds. Your entire analysis goes out the window because odds are unknown. Motivating forces don't matter either, it's a casino machine>Risk your money at unknown odds>Don'tThis is all you need to know as a human capable of picking the two options. Everything else is unnecessary information. I've ended this whole topic and there's no reason for you to even have a comment chain now.
>>534136360You don't get time to communicate in the hypothetical. But I agree.>>534136312>You are wrong and are failing to understand what youre observing.No, I'm not.>You are assuming everyone is a rational actorNo, I'm not. Obviously. I'm just explaining the rational behind the blue voters, and why removing the bit about *everyone* being forced to vote makes it less interesting. I have never once said the blue actions are rational.>You are making the assumption that removing those who cannot or do not understand the question from the pool will massively change the Blue pushers minds and I think that speaks to you not grasping why they make the choice they do.You are making an assumption it would not change their response. I'm just saying it makes for a less viral question, and that it would then boil down to plain 'objectively correct' vs 'objectively wrong', which is less interesting, and no doubt the blue voters wouldn't be so adamant in their defense of this overtime as without the 'muh children' as backstop, they have nothing to adhere to, logically or ideaologically. Now please stop telling me what I'm assuming or saying.
>>534135497No. Do the practical example for 3 and 5 people voting. Where there are two other choices, you have the following possibilities:0001 TIE10 TIE112 ties out of four gives a 1/2 chance of tying, so you get a 1/2 chance of deciding if 1 person dies, expected outcome of red is 0.5 deaths.Now consider 5 people voting, with 4 people not you you get:0000000100100011 TIE01000101 TIE0110 TIE011110001001 TIE1010 TIE10111100 TIE1101111011116/16 = 3/8 ties, which means you can kill 2 people 3/8ths of the time for a total expected death of 6/8 = 0.75 people if you pick red.
>it's a redfag reinterprets the prompt incorrectly for the nth time thread
>>534136532Yeah like this one would make it a clear blue because you do actually know the odds here, as it is in the OP the odds are either>Risk everything for an unknown reward>Keep everythingExtremely simple choice and there's no ambiguity.
>>534136553>Blue is performative feminine ideology. Your failure to grasp that is exacerbated and abetted by the very smokescreen I was talking about, and I think its a fair assumption that removing the mindless group would have negligible impact upon Blues - they arent really worried about those people anyway.OK, you can have your own opinion on whatever weird hypothetical you're creating as a different question and its effects on the 'feminine mind' or whatever you're on about. I'm just saying that including the children in the question gives the blues the motivation and moral power they want, and provides a backdrop that means they can't just be logically refuted. Call it a scapegoat for the behavior, if you want.
>>534136691You're double-counting unnecessarily. The probability of a tie approaches 0 as the number of players approaches infinity. Half of the probability mass is going to be on left side and half on the other side in any case.
>>534136476>The premise of the questionis a vote which implies conscious decision, otherwise an animal or a meteor hitting the button could cast a vote. This crutch is so weak. There are babies so young and retards so retarded that they couldn't even press a button when comanded to, even if it was only one button.
forced meme
>>534136307And the red voter knew people might die and chose to vote red lol. You can reframe it however many ways to act like red people aren't doing anything, but inaction is still a choice. The trolley problem doesn't change if you swap the tracks for the 1 and 5 people.>>534135924Well, who do you think is better? The person who kills to preserve life, or the person who kills because he thinks others deserve it?
>>534129381Note how this "game theory" doesn't address what happens to the people who press the red button at all. Red button pressers live in every single scenario yet it isn't listed.The person who created this image is either trolling or is legitimately retarded.
>>534136556Christianity says to push the res button tho. Christ is very clear that one should not destroy themselves to save others. He doesn't say to be uncaring, but he does say to take care of yourself and loved ones first, then give excess to strangers who may need it. Majority of people who call themselves Christians would press the blue button like you said, but they're performative hypocrites. Christ also says to never be like the hypocrites. I do understand what you're saying and I do agree with you, but I would like to point to put that Christ does speak on false morality, self-preservation, and hypocrital actions and that most declared Christians have never read the Bible. If they had, they would press the red button.
>>534136691>>534135497what you are both missing here is human behavioral propensities. Sure people in general are not so atomized that they pick Red and Blue exactly 50% of the time. Sure, the polls on 4chan are very close, but that is not a reliable indicator of the behavior of the vast majority of people. In fact, in the actual twitter post this is from, blue was a common choice, because it is the 'right' thing to do. In that case, if you believe that most people will choose blue and you have limited to no communciation, then you should choose blue, because to choose red would be implicitly contributing to a bad choice while the rest of the population picks blue. You would be committing yourself to a losing choice, something that even God himself would not want you to choose given the information that you have. Indeed, in an altruistic 'good' society where most people are choosing blue, you should likely choose blue as well, not just as an act of good faith but to make sure that your one vote contributes to the struggle of Good vs. Evil, essentially. If you knew that red would be the most popular choice, this would be another story, but it's really the opposite. Don't be the red button chud.
>>534136685>No, I'm not.I disagree.>>You are assuming everyone is a rational actor>No, I'm not. Obviously. Every argument you levied talked about the rationality or logical reasoning of the participants.>Im just explaining the rational behind the blue votersThey arent rational, thats the point.> and why removing the bit about *everyone* being forced to vote makes it less interesting. It makes it more interesting, because then we see the Blues more clearly for what they are.>I have never once said the blue actions are rational.You talked about how they wouldn't do a think because it wouldn't be rational or logical but neither of those things matter to them in context.>You are making an assumption No I am stating a hypothesis, based upon their motive, which you do not comprehend clearly. Obviously.> I'm just saying it makes for a less viral question, and that it would then boil down to plain 'objectively correct' vs 'objectively wrong'Again, you silly thing, THEY WOULDNT SEE IT THAT WAY, because their motive is not logical or rational, its IDEOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL.>and no doubt the blue voters wouldn't be so adamant in their defense of this overtime as without the 'muh children' as backstop, they have nothing to adhere to, logically or ideaologically.They have a martyrdom complex and emotional thinking. Thats the source, thats what they are ahereing to, which is WHY removing the kiddos wouldn't vastly change the paradigm in al my hypothesis: The kids are just a smokescreen that muddies the actual output.>Now please stop telling me what I'm assuming or saying.Then stop doing it.
>>534127580yeah it is truly amazing how many retarded blue buttoners there are...
>>534136967I'm talking only about game theory here. The assumption is that everyone is a rational actor trying to win the game.
>>534136112>it could be solved objectively in a logical or mathematical fashion.It CAN be solved objectively in a logical or mathematical fashion. Objectively, there is zero logical or mathematical reason for anyone to ever pick the blue button.It superficially seems related to the Prisoner's Dilemma problem, but it's a broken flawed version of it. In a true Prisoner's Dilemma, both players will get the largest reward if they both make the "cooperative" decision. And if they both make the "selfish" decision, they both get punished equally.But if one player chooses to act cooperatively and the other chooses to act selfishly, the cooperative player will get punished worse than if they had acted selfishly, and the selfish player will get rewarded (or punished less).But in red button vs blue button, the premise of the game eliminates any benefit from acting "cooperatively" - the best case scenario if you choose red is that you don't die, and the best case scenario if you choose blue is that you don't die.But the worst case scenario if you choose red is still you don't die, but if you press blue, there is a non-zero chance of dying.This is just straight up pure logic/math. Everyone should always choose the red button. The only reason anyone at all is picking the blue button is precisely because they are being ILLOGICAL. It is a mathematical certainty that everyone should always choose red, but the people choosing blue are doing so because they are assuming that there will be some people out there who irrationally choose the blue button, so they are also going to irrationally choose the blue button (increasing their chances of death from zero to a non-zero number with no real benefit) in a misguided attempt to try to save irrational people from the consequences of their irrational decisions. That's not logic at all, it's completely illogical and retarded and entirely emotional.
>>534136672>For who, I have my 100k and I'm not putting it in the machine until I know the odds.Globally, in terms of deaths. There will surely be some participants that select blue unknowingly due to being retarded etc.>They shouldn't of done that then they didn't know their odds, but I don't have to sacrifice my retirement to save them.The entire point of the question is that some people are forced into this without knowing or being able to reason properly, eg retards and children.>Boom I just removed the emotion and you're retarded. There's no risk.No, you're just not understanding that I'm simply explaining the blue side for you since you don't seem to get it. >Not a real thing because you don't know odds.Yes, it is. Every blue vote increases the collective risk, exactly because we don't know the odds.>Your entire analysis goes out the window because odds are unknown. Motivating forces don't matter either, it's a casino machineI haven't presented any 'analysis', dipshit. I'm just explaining blues motivating forces.>I've ended this whole topic and there's no reason for you to even have a comment chain now.You're a complete retard. You're talking to someone who's explaining the blue side, but voted red. If you weren't so illiterate, you'd know this. The logical motivating force for the blues in risking themselves to save the minority of handicapped voters who didn't understand the question.
>>534136848Yes, the odds of a tie decrease as the group size grows, but they decrease slower than the group size increases. I literally just showed you that. All of the cases I gave were equally likely and cover the total possible outcomes. I don't see where I am double-counting unnecessarily. Can you show me your figures for probability in the random votes case?>>534136894Reframing it to red lives, blue lives, and both live is just changing the sign in the mathematical representation. Not a meaningful change to the result.
>>534137055Behavioral considerations are absolutely an important part of game theory. In fact, we can do a quick reductio ad absurdum proof on why human beings would never choose red and blue exactly 50% of the time, which is how you are deriving probabilities which is completely incorrect within Game Theory. There has to be a valid game tree set up and the nodes are NOT going to have 50/50 probabilities throughout.
>>534136886Inaction is a choice. Correct. I am not responsible for what other people do. I am only responsible for myself. I will not be guilted by hypocrites like you who tell me I have to press the blue button because if I dont other people might due because they also pressed it. They could have not pressed it and instead chosen to walk away, which is the same as pressing the red button. You're just an oversocialized retard who puts themselves at risk for no reason.
Asia alone can kill the entire rest of the planet if they vote in unison. You really think your single vote matters outside of saving yourself?
>>534136829>OK, you can have your own opinion on whatever weird hypothetical Yeah youre getting upset now.> 'feminine mind' And youre either a woman or a bitchmade man. Continue.>I'm just saying that including the children in the question gives the blues the motivation NO.Thats the point - they kids ARE NOT the motivation, THE PERFORMANCE is the motivation.>provides a backdrop that means they can't just be logically refutedAgain: Even if you remove the kids, thay does not "logically refute" their ideologically motivated drive to espouse hypercompassion, and KNOWING THERE WOULD STILL BE PEOPLE WHO WOULD CHOOSE BLUE SIMPLY TO TRY TO SAVE OTHERS, that would be all the "backdrop" they need.They are not acting rationally and considering the logic at hand, they are making up justifications for a widely seen ideological position which espouses self destructive performative faux-altruism as virtuous in the utmost.Call it a scapegoat for the behavior, if you want.
>>534137002It's actually scary.
>>534137219Someone make this image solely about blue or red button pressing. I need to see it. Like a war of button pressers going on or something.
>>534136917He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
>>534135397>murderA word that you've already conceded has no place here, yet you contunually attempt to use it to twist emotional responses. You're either a coward doing this intentionally or you're literally retarded and can't understand why it doesn't apply.
>>534136886>The person who kills to preserve lifeDepends on what life.>or the person who kills because he thinks others deserve it?If you are killing someone to preserve someone else's life, by definition you are ascribing a status upon those you are killing as being deserving of that treatment.Youre basically trying to say thay youre "good" if you kill a man trying to murder his child's rapist, because he - as consequence of his intent to take another's life - thus deserved death in response to gird that life he targeted.
>>534137293I use murder and killing people interchangeably. I'm an autist so I don't really have the emotional attachment you do to the concept.
>>534137101>It CAN be solved objectively in a logical or mathematical fashion.Not with the information we have.>Objectively, there is zero logical or mathematical reason for anyone to ever pick the blue button.I already told you the logical reason for voting blue is to save the children.Not reading the rest of what you said because your premise was wrong, and we're both in agreeance about red vs blue anyway. I'm just explaining the rationale behind why someone would vote blue, not defending it, so I don't need to read your slop.In reality, the optimal and objectively correct vote would come down to whatever has the higher EV, which would be contingent upon a probability distribution unknown to us (likelihood of blue success).
>>534137151>Globally in terms of deathA global undefined reward of an unknown amount of people losing 100k, which I cannot be told the numbers of>Some people are forcedAn unknown number of people are forced>I'm explainingYou're explaining it shit, I already explained it. Your explanation is shit and adds unnecessary disinfo>Collective riskNot a real thing I don't know the odds, you couldn't even say this hypothetically because the odds aren't published>No analysisYou just presented one that's what you're doing>I'm just explaining broExplaining wrong with disinfo and unnecessary bloatThe actual question>Put 100k in that machine of unknown odds to help an unknown amount of people potentially>Don't do thatThis is the question your disinfo doesn't matter and your explanations are shit, I'm not reading your retard chain. You just bloat the thing up with non-argument non-explanation bullshit.
>>534137153>Can you show me your figures for probability in the random votes case?I'm not enumerating the outcomes of a binomial distribution for you. I can only tell you that the point probability of a tie approaches zero, and precisely 50 % of all cases are going to be on either side of the distribution. At that exact point of a tie, you can save 50 % of people, but at precisely 50 % of all cases, you choosing blue kills you. That is all. Believe it or not. I don't really care to try to convince you any further.
Let's make this less retardedOnly men who own land get to vote and they put their families on the line if they vote blue
>>534134522Genuine bluefags do seem to suffer from main character syndrome.
>>534137265>um ackshually here's an out of context Bible verse proving that I didn't read the Bible Cool. There will always be the poor and the suffering.
>>534137230Lol, you're going so off the rails. You're trying to get at the 'sincerity' of their motivation, which is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing. Take your meds.
>>534135406People were raging online over the "is this dress blue or gold" for like 3 months. This button is just the same stupid shit to cause arguments for no reason. Youre right its not that serious, but still annoying to see idiots fall for rage bait so frequently
>>534132595It's functionally the same, but this actually damages the hypothetical. You can't have either side be a passive action or people will lean towards it. You can't reword what the buttons do either, because the point is that blue sounds like the good boy choice. Almost no one will click the ultimate death game roulette button if you call it that. But call it the "everyone survives if you reach 50%" button and now you've created a situation where people will willingly press the objectively wrong answer. Either to feel morally superior or out of a savior complex to stop any potential deaths.
>>534137369You're not an autist. You're just stupid. If you were an autist, you would understand that murder is not the same as killing people. Murder has a strict legal definition. Some "autist" you are. No. You're just a moron.
>>534137427God damn am I tired of the hypocrisy of No True Christian bullshit - you niggers have 19 fucking interpretations of 17 different version of your books and each and every one of you special snowflake faggots has your own fucking headband that youre always so eager to leap into the fray to defend via the most debased arguments imaginable.Fuck philosemites, fuck you all to death.
>>534137393>A global undefined reward The reward in this case would be lives remaining, obviously.>An unknown number of people are forcedNot unknown, it's the entire global population, as said in the question.> Your explanation is shit and adds unnecessary disinfoMy explanation is better than yours, and you clearly didn't understand the blue motivation at the start and possibly still don't. >Not a real thing The collective risk is the total risk of death, viewed globally. Are you retarded?You are like 95 IQ at most, lol. Done with this because I vote red anyway.
>>534137369>emotional attachmentIt's a legal definition, you're a fake autist or you're so far down the spectrum you're crippled to the point you can't understand what words mean. Even if you want your own special words (loser tactic) this still applies >>534130393
>>534137581Careful, that's a forest. You seem to be missing it for the trees.
>>534137600>Reward in livesNo, an unknown reward that you don't know that you're getting.>Unknown number of poepleYup, unknown.>Le better, you don't understand motivationAdditional bloat disguised as information, not relevant>Collective riskNot a real thing.I've made a slot machine. Put 100k in it or don't, an unknown amount of people will put money into it and it has unknown odds, it might not ever even pay out, you putting money in might increase the chances of a payout by an unknown amount. That's it, that's the whole question. Just think in the real world and stop bloating shit up with your little non-arguments.
>>534137397Well taking the limit, the exact point of a tie has probability zero and the negative outcome is infinite since infinitely many people die. If you run the actual maths, you can see that the number of people you expect to kill approaches sqrt(N/pi) as the group size, N, grows because it's given by N!*N/(2^N * (N/2)!^2).>>534137523>>534137647Yes murder is illegal killing, but quite frankly, I don't give a crap. I use the words interchangeably because I don't care and I trust that you are smart enough to tell what I mean without getting all up in your feefees about which specific words I use to describe things.
>>534137000I can guarantee the question would not have been as viral if there was an objectively correct answer. This is obvious. There would also be less blue voters, since they'd just be 'wrong'. The nuances give them ground to stand on. Not interested in hashing this out anymore since this is obvious to anyone with eyes and you're spinning this into a weird direction when I'm only trying to clarify that the part about the children being forced to vote is what gives the question sustenance and virality even if you don't like it and keep crying about it.
>>534137435>Lol, you're going so off the rails. Yes, I know youre upset sweets.>You're trying to get at the 'sincerity' of their motivation, Yes!>which is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing. Thats literally the most/only interesting about this discussion babe.>Take your meds.I understand your brain is fried from social media, antidepressants and your general feminine curse, but please dont behave like a Jew. Its unbecoming of a lady.The only interesting this about this experiment is what people choose and why, and the foundational element of interest is Blue pushers and why they choose to push Blue.The answer is simple: They have bad ideology which tells them shit like self-sacrifice for hyper-compassionate cause is peak morality.If you removed the people who cannot understand the choice they're making, the fundamental question remains: There's a very good chance SOMEONE is gonna push that button, and thus SOMEONE ELSE will have to push through button to save them, so on and so forth, maintaining the opportunity to espouse emotional (feminine) performative ideological desire to "nobly self-sacrifice to aid others, bravely espousing the virtue of compassion for fellow man to the point of risking life itself!".Your problem is, besides being a woman and being emotionally compromised, is that you fundamentally dont understand neither the question nor what its demonstrating, why Blues are activated by it at their core.
>>534127580I really don't get how anyone would press a button other than the red one.>RedYou guaranteed live.>BlueYou may live.Like, that's the entire choice. Do you want to guaranteed live or maybe live? Unless you are suicidal, red is the only real choice.
>>534137731Shut the fuck up neojew.
>>534137777>Well taking the limit, the exact point of a tie has probability zero and the negative outcome is infinite since infinitely many people die.If you have infinitely many people, you die in infinitely many cases by picking blue. Surely you understand that the binomial distribution is symmetric, and that half of the probability mass is going to be on either side of the tie? In one half, you die by picking blue. In the other half your vote does not matter. At tie, you save infinitely many people.
>>534137881>Thats literally the most/only interesting about this discussion babe.It's not. You're turning this into some 'leftist psychology' rant when I'm just saying that without the children or forced votes, this wouldn't be a viral poll. It'd just be a right or wrong trick question. Touch grass?
You press red because there is no downsideI press red because there is an upside
>>534137867>an objectively correctYoure still not getting it baby.>>534137881See above.Until you understand that TO THE BLUES changing the question as I suggested wouldn't create "objectively correct" scenario that YOU perceive through logical, rational consideration of the circumstances.Until you can get past that fault, you won't understand what is even truly being discussed.
>>534137867There is an objectively right answer, all you're saying is blatantly retarded disinfo or bloat>An unknown amount of people will put an unknown amount of money in this machine>And it pays out an unknown amount>You putting your whole retirement in increases the chance of the payout by an unknown amountSo there's a blatantly right choice, don't do the retard gamble with unknown odds. There's no ambiguity, you only know there's a machine and unknown variables, making it a bad gamble. You should not burn your entire retirement on the machine.Therefore you should not kill yourself to do an unknown action. I would not even put 100 dollars in said machine so why would I put my life into it.There's just a blatantly right or wrong action and you're emotionally reacting to everything.
>>534137740Read a book nigger. I just defined the reward, risk and population size for you. You aren't even forming coherent responses.
>>534137972>It's not.It is.> You're turning this into some 'leftist psychology' rant Youre getting upset again.I didnt say anything about leftists - hyperchristian neocons are just as likely to fall into this ideological trap, ala adopting black african kids as an example.>I'm just saying that without the children or forced votes, this wouldn't be a viral poll.And Im saying youre wrong, and the reason for your fault is you dont seem to grasp what's actually driving the blues, nor who they are it seems.> It'd just be a right or wrong trick question.TO YOU! BUT NOT TO *THEM*! THATS THE POINT YOU SILLY GIRL!> Touch grass?Im wearing grass stained jeans right now from gardening and mowing the lawn earlier lolGrow up lil lady
>>534137777>I use the words interchangeably because I don't care and I trust that you are smart enough to tell what I mean without getting all up in your feefees about which specific words I use to describe things.So you're not an autist and instead rely on colloquialism and inferences that people may not understand. Basically, you're just a lazy asshole, not an autist. Got it. >>534137918Nice ad hom. You should read the Bible before you start getting all pissy over hypocrites claiming to be Christian but are not.
of course
>>534138161I thought I told you to keep your cocksocket closed you hypocritical philosemitic ironynigger?Shut the fuck up.
>>534137954If you want to put it in terms of distributions, the peak density of the normal distribution is inversely proportional to the standard error, which is k/sqrt(N) for the original binomial distribution we're approximating. The result is the same, sqrt(N/k) expected deaths. But I don't see why you keep putting it in terms of distributions when we can run the actual maths for the finite cases and see what the answer is.>In one half, you die by picking blue. In the other half your vote does not matter. At tie, you save infinitely many people.Yes, and I suppose I neglected that in my original response so the expected deaths should be 0.5 less to account for the half a person (yourself) saved by pressing red, but that still means 0 deaths for 3 people and 0.25 for 5 people. The overall characteristic is still increasing. This doesn't work in the distribution case, because you have an infinitely small probability of saving infinitely many people. You can't shake that out to a concrete number without limits, which tell you it is infinite lives saved since the number of people grows faster than the odds of tying shrink.
>>534136691You don't need to do this, it's a pointless waste of time.If you press red, you have a 0% chance of dying.If you press blue, you have greater than 0% chance of dying.Regardless of which button you press, there will almost certainly be some unknown number of people who die. Those people die for reasons that are almost completely outside of your control.The primary reason that those people died was because they pressed the blue button instead of red, changing their chance of dying from 0% to number greater than 0.For the people who (stupidly) chose to press blue, their non-zero chance of dying will depend on the number of other people who also pressed blue. But for each of those other people, their individual decision will only at most factor in as a tiny fraction of the outcome.If everyone on Earth plays this game, you as an individual will only be able to push the outcome for blue button people from high non-zero chance of dying to lower non-zero chance of dying by 1/4 billionth. By pressing the blue button, you are infinitely increasing your own potential risk of dying, but your choice only pushes the needle 1/ 4 billionth of the way towards "saving" the blue people. Since the risk vs reward is so lopsided even for the people irrationally considering picking blue to "save" the other people, that means fewer people will think it is worth the risk, which means it will be less likely that blue will make it past the 50% threshold, which makes the risk/reward even more lopsided.
>>534137777>but quite frankly, I don't give a crap. I use the words interchangeably because I don't careThis is core of the blue mindset. A complete and stubborn refusal to use logic. Every response stems from this fundamental problem with your mind.If you pointlessly exchange the word murder for something else >>534130393 still applies to itJust like if I stopped calling you a retard and started calling you an idiot. Nothing changed.Red can never murder.
>>534138161Sorry that I don't painstakingly choose every word in my posts to avoid you intentionally ignoring the point to focus on how one of the words makes you feel. That was stupid of me and I can see it has caused us issues.
>>534138042>There is an objectively right answerNo there's not.>all you're saying is blatantly retarded disinfo or bloatI've been explaining the rationale behind the blue vote is in 'saving children' or some handicapped population that made the wrong choice, since they were unable to discern the logically optimal choice, since you didn't seem to understand that initially.You can stop with the slot machine analogy, we have the written text of the actual poll available to us and work out things form there.>So there's a blatantly right choiceMathematically, the higher EV choice (where EV is remaining lives) would depend on a probability distribution we don't know (odds of blue success). We don't know this a priori, so can't say with certainty, but as I've said repeatedly red is, imo, the logical choice faced with that uncertainty.All I've been doing is explaining the rationale of the blue vote, in which it's worthwhile and logical to assume a positive expectancy from the risk and vote blue to save the handicapped population.>There's just a blatantly right or wrong action and you're emotionally reacting to everything.You're such a retard, lol. >>534138142Again, you're going off the rails on this uninvited psychology rant. Stop being obsessed or a Big Blue Cock might have to visit your mom tonight.
>>534138059OK actually define them then, you have 10 words, no bloat.>>534138339Giant bloat wall wrap it up
>>534138192Nah. You're a hypocrite accusing others of being one because you refuse to understand. I'll say what I want and what I'll say is: you're a low iq, mouth breathing faggot who sperged out over nothing in a conversation he wasn't even involved in.>I read a comment I didn't have to read and didn't like and felt the need to insert myself into the conversation to let others know I didn't like it and dont like them and now I am MAD>How could this be happening to me??
>>534138279I have presented a complete fucking mathematical breakdown of the problem, to which the response is almost always “fuck you I don't like that.” I am not the one who decided to derail a conversation over a word choice that makes me feel bad.
>>534138425nothing to do with feelings, red can't murder, if you want to swap that out for a different word nothing changes. the consequence of death never falls on the red pusher
>>534138294>it's not my fault that I don't use the correct words which have specific definitions and mean specific things>it's your fault that you know words and know what they mean specifically and are confused by my incorrect use of certain words that have specific meanings>it's your fault you don't understand what I mean when I refuse to communicate correctly.Yeah. You're not an autist. You're an idiot. And even worse, you reason like a woman. Faggot.
>>534138339>No there's not.Technically there is, or close to it. In reality, people will vote a certain way. If they vote red by a margin greater than 1, the right answer is to pick red since that saves your life. If it's a 50/50 tie, you pick blue, and otherwise your choice doesn't matter. So there is a right answer, but to find it you would have to actually run this experiment and see how everyone else votes.
>>534138375I already said it. Reward is remaining lives (where more is better), risk is exposure to potential loss of life and population is the global population. The optimal vote (obviously) maximizes reward while reducing risk, called expected value or EV.The blue voters think it's worth taking on excess risk to achieve a 50% majority, in order to reap maximal reward. Red voters think it's more logical to vote toward risk reduction, and accept that some bluetards will not be saved in this.That's the whole problem and debate. Blue voters tend to make an implicit assumption that a majority is reachable therefore the vote has higher EV.
>>534138425it's honestly so funny that you can't comprehend this, anyways thread's about to die so get the last word in like the feminine retard you are. You already lost, i'm out.
>>534138690I think you're based.
>>534138557>Technically there is, or close to it. In reality, people will vote a certain way.At the time of polling as the problem is phrased, there is not, because as I've said we don't know the underlying probability distribution which would be required to determine EV of either vote. So as the question stands with the limited information, an objectively correct answer, at least numerically, doesn't exist and in reality it'd be further complicated by the moral quandaries and nuances of children losing lives etc.
>>534138508Previously:>you're using that word to twist an emotional responseNow:>it has nothing to do with feelingsSure sure. But legally speaking, it can be murder. Many people in this thread have expressed a clear intention that they are pressing the red button because they want blues to die. In a court of law, I'm fairly sure this would constitute murder. >>534138529I'm diagnosed you tard. You can't fucking gatekeep autism. You clearly just don't get how it works.
>>534137375>Not with the information we have.Yes, it definitely can, you are just a moron who doesn't understand logic.>the logical reason for voting blue is to save the children.Logically, the children will choose red and then they won't need to be saved from anything. The ONLY reason ANYONE in this scenario is in any danger in the first place is because they illogically chose to press the blue button. Making an illogical decision that puts yourself in unnecessary risk to try to save someone else from the consequences of their own illogical decision is NOT logical.>the rationale behind why someone would vote blueThere are exactly two reasons why someone would vote blue:-They are too retarded to understand the basic premise of the game-They acted illogically because they wanted to virtue signal how suicidally empathetic they are.>the optimal and objectively correct vote would come down to whatever has the higher EVThe optimal and objective individual vote is to pick red, 100% of the time. All that the actual outcome of the vote will tell us is what percentage of the voters were fucking morons who picked the objectively wrong button for objectively wrong reasons and are now dead because of it. If there are somehow enough fucking morons that they actually reach 50%+ and don't die, that does not mean they were right or won. Red always wins regardless of the actual vote outcome, because red always has a 100% chance of not dying.
>>534138614>Reward is something I don't know, risk I don't knowOK so simple you don't know therefore there can be no logical conclusion but red, you don't bet on known variables.>Blue voters think>Red voters thinkBloat unnecessaryYou've exceeded your 10 words therefore no arguments>Unknown risk, unknown reward, bet your life?There, 7 words, an argument. You have none. Holy bloat, press the blue button, retard.
>>534138768>I'm diagnosed you tard. You can't fucking gatekeep autism. You clearly just don't get how it works.Says the guy who is using "autism" as an excuse for not knowing how words work. You are correct and I believe you when you say you're a diagnosed retard.
>>534138789>Yes, it definitely can, you are just a moron who doesn't understand logic.No, you cannot, because the maximal EV answer depends on a probability distribution we don't have, not on logic. The objectively correct answer would need to be worked out empirically, not deductively, because humans are not always rational actors, as this poll shows.If there's a 100% chance of blue winning for example, it's the highest EV vote possible since red will always admit some non-zero number of blue button pressers.>Logically, the children will choose red Assumption, many would likely choose blue as it's worded. I'm sure even many adults fell for the same trap. >There are exactly two reasons why someone would vote blue:>-They are too retarded to understand the basic premise of the game>-They acted illogically because they wanted to virtue signal how suicidally empathetic they are.Agree, but it's not strictly illogical. Irrational, maybe. >The optimal and objective individual vote is to pick red, 100% of the time.Factually incorrect, since it would depend on the reality of the results which we don't know at time of voting, and this becomes more of a moral consideration than a purely numerical one, which is the entire point - there is no objective right and wrong answer. Red is the rational and numerically optimal vote, but that's clearly not how everyone is unanimously voting. >Red always wins regardless of the actual vote outcome, because red always has a 100% chance of not dying.An individual win isn't the same as a population win.>>534138816What? I just told you what they are. What is wrong with you?
>>534139147>I just told you what they areYou have 10 words, no bloat. You didn't tell me shit, give me numbers.
>>534139293I don't have to abide by your 95 IQ constraints, and without knowing the underlying probability of success for blue there are no numbers to give. That's the problem with the blue vote, is that it makes an assumption here. I don't know what you're even trying to argue about.
>>534139399>No numbers to give>In a gambleOK so fuck you, you're retarded.I just ended it all, you exceeded your 10 words and the only words of value were>There are no numbers to giveOK you did your 6 words and they were bad, therefore you're retarded and there's no justifiable reason to ever press blue. It's gambling but there are no numbers to give.You can't listen to extremely basic instructions and you don't even speak english.
