>>82555520 (me)
51% or more* small correction

I push the blue button as a sort of abstract suicide attempt

>>82556773
what if it fails

>>82555520
I doubt humanity is all that altruistic so pressing blue is basically suicide. I'm pressing red

>>82555520
If I press red, I'm guaranteed to live, but in the event blue fails, I'm stuck surrounded by the worst fucking assholes humanity has to offer.
I'm pressing blue. Either I live with decent people in the world, or I die to evade being surrounded by nothing but fucking pricks for the rest of my life.

Red. I aint willing to die for strangers that intentionally endanger themselves or for someones stupid kid.
Even if I were it wouldnt be the kind of people humanity is full of. I know darn well no random people out there are willing to do anything meaningful for me out of the goodness of their heart. I spent a lifetime trying to be nice to others and I am almost certain I can count on one hand the amount of people that tried to reciprocate with more than empty words.

>>82555520
>press purple button
>everyone but me lives

>>82557053
Nothing ever happens

Inane LinkedIn virtue signaling dilemma.

>>82555520
Red. Blue niggers deserve to die and be removed from the gene pool

>>82555520
>everybody on earth
>this includes several billion self centered browns that'll just think "sheet why woulz dems people pick da bloo button? im livin today yo!"
the blue button is suicide, even if every single white person pressed the blue button there's simply not enough of us to out vote the third world swarms.

>>82555520
I'm pressing red lol this one is obvious

>>82555520
"Blue button" psychology is literally an irrational altruism trap. Humans are selfish by nature and your behavior is correct, morally and literally, in as much as you admit this and tailor your behavior toward it. "What if everyone was nice/honest/trustworthy" would be nice but it's never going to happen. Best start admitting as much. Red is literally the correct choice. Blue button pressers are the ones who vote for state run charities and are shocked that they are trillion dollar fraud holes.

>>82555520
Can we change this so that if I press the red button, everyone dies, including me? Thus making a better world?

>>82555520
Blue. If it gets a 51% or more majority then every button pusher gets to live. If Blue doesn't get a majority then the entire world is populated by only the selfish and vain, as every person on Earth would not pick a single button in unison.

>>82555520
Spoilers: This is an allegory for voting democrat or republican
"Help everyone at your own determent, or fuck anyone that's not in your in-group"
There, now fuck off with this disingenuous "sOcIaL ExPeRiMeNt" bullshit

>>82561264
That's pressing both buttons at the same time

The big problem is, there's a shitload of people out there who'll press the red button just because they think it's funny, or because they want to see what'll happen or because someone told them that everyone who presses the blue button secretly wants them dead.

It's not everyone, but these last seven years have shown me it's enough.

>>82555520
Blue. I'm of an utilitarian bent and pushing red would either be a zero-sum game or sacrifice all the people who pressed blue. And unless literally only one person has pressed blue that's more than I'm willing to pay for my own life.

>>82555520
The question is: do you care about protecting retards in society? See if everyone presses red then everyone will live anyways. The only people who are gonna press blue are retards who didn't understand the question. Or retards who think they're doing something moral. So are you gonna risk your own life to make sure those retards have enough votes to live, or are you gonna save yourself and let the retards cull themselves?

I know that sounds harsh but I'd press red.

ok now lets say Jesus is under the blue button and the devil is under the red just like that one meme

The question itself is incorrect: the personal positive outcome of pressing the red button is the same as that of pressing the blue button without the blue button's risk of a negative outcome, so a purely selfish rational actor would pick the red button; the social positive outcome (assuming everyone else is also a rational actor, of any level of selfishness) is ALSO the same as that of pressing the blue button (again, assuming everyone is a rational actor), so a purely selfless and rational (and thus non-suicidal) person would ALSO pick the red button.
So everyone (except stupid people, as >>82564433 said) will pick red and nothing will happen.

>>82564433
>protecting retards
indians and low iq aggressive niggers pick red too, so you didn't really cleanse the world of retards.

>>82564787
no, BUT we get rid of the suicidally empathetic retards, which puts us a step closer to getting rid of shitskins.

>>82564480
so you press the red button and it bonks the devil on the head, obviously

>>82564845
but what if the red button is over his penis so when people press it it jerks him off

The buttons question is constructed in a misleading way. Red literally does nothing where as blue is comparable to drinking poison because some snake oil salesman told you he'd give you the antidote if over 50% of all people also drink the poison.
If you make it just about either drinking poison or not drinking poison, it's pretty easy to pick the right choice+bluenigs have way less justifications to their their stupidity.

>>82555520
Red: people save themselves.
Blue:
>idiots put themselves in danger for literally no reason, either too stupid to actually read the question, or they read it and saw the "50% chance to survive" option thinking the other button meant 0%
>well-meaning idiots put themselves in danger in the hopes of becoming saviors, saving the 3-IQ idiots who put themselves in danger for literally no reason
>some of those well-meaning idiots only push the button because they saw the opportunity to possibly save people and instantly viewed that as the "morally good" option
>red justifiably calls all the blue-button people stupid

Bonus:
>anyone that attempts this moral button question thing on social media ends up skewing the results heavily because they can either see the results or see the comments about the results
>this leads people to now know whether the blue button is safe or not, which then leads them to either push blue to nudge it closer to 50%, or push blue because they get to claim the morally superior option safely
100% if there was no way of telling how the poll is going, no comments, no way to see the results in advance, red would win overwhelmingly because it removes the two guarantees mentioned above.
The actual moral question itself would've been anonymous anyway, so what you'd get is mass death of idiots and people who'd be stupid enough to try to put an oxygen mask on someone else before themselves. Overall a net positive.

>>82565124
social media polls also have no stakes, its pure virtue signaling.
i'd be willing to bet that 80% of the people saying "yeah i'd pick blue!" would wuss out and press red if they actually had to make the choice.

>>82555520
I break the machine.

>>82557826
Suicidal/pathological empathy does not make good people, their morality is twisted. We would be better off without them.

>>82555520
Yellow button: rape the person that made the hypothetical to death

>>82555520
White people and honorable japanese would press blue since they have honor, care for others and empathy
Rajeesh, ngubu and chang will press red since they don't and kill the good guys

>>82555520
White people press blue
Violent savage and selfish brownoids press red

>>82567401
so white people die off and are free

>>82555520
Depends on how they die. If the blue people die horribly, and there's zero prep time to tell everyone to JUST PRESS THE RED BUTTON. Then this'd could be a problem, but if they just cease to be alive and the worst thing is their body needs to be properly handled it's not that serious a question. Also runs into a problem with children, as their retardation is usually temporary.

>>82568778
why do people say that children would choose blue lol, they arent developed enough to understand slightly more complex things like "but think about the people who choose blue and would die!" or even more complex things that even the blue button adults dont get like "best outcome is everyone pressing red as only a dumbass would try to martyr themselves by pressing blue, which is essentially natural selection", so they would simply press the red button because "i dont wanna die :c", only way theyre pressing blue is if their parents push him into it, and even then at that point the kid's beyond saving because they're getting groomed into having suicidal empathy by the blue button parents EVEN if the blue button people survive in the end, so red is still worth pressing

>>82567250
if anything, those people are sacrificing themselves to keep the bad people alive, they pretend they're reality, but they're actually enablers

>>82571505
they pretend they're good, but they're*
brainfart moment

Comments always say red but the polls always say blue
And reds get mad about
Funny, you'd think they'd be happy to see more people alive at the end of the day

>>82560949
You underestimate the suicidal arrogance and egocentricism of these people
Every Indian who gets pulverized by a train because they wanted to look cool is a blue button pusher
That's really what the question is and no amount of faggots trying to pretend its about a trusting society will ever dupe anyone: are you willing to jump onto train tracks to pull some jeet out of the way knowing full well he chose to put himself there; are you willing to try and rescue a drowning brownoid who jumped into the water knowing full well.he couldn't swim?
There is no actual philosophy being revealed in any debate, just a demonstration of the sheer ego of midwits where they'll blow their own brains out if they can virtue signal (and shame you) while doing it.

File: 20260501_123139.png (37 KB, 846x757)

37 KB PNG

>>82555520
I heard of this problem on Twitter. It was ruined because some random person said some bs about toddlers voting & the OP just replied "yes". Then Blue pressers go on to gaslight everyone by saying that it would be obvious everyone includes children. However, they hyperfixate the smallest issue created by their assumptions.

>>82571785
we arent mad that the blue button people survive, in fact, pressing red literally means you cant lose because you'll be alive either way, we are mad because the blue button people are being snobby high horse assholes about it and calling anybody who chooses red a selfish asshole, this wouldnt be such an intense topic if they were more respectful or understanding about us choosing red

>pressing red does nothing if blue is the majority
>pressing red does nothing if red is the majority (people will die, but they'd still die even if you pressed the other button)
>pressing blue does nothing if blue is the majority
>pressing blue murders 1 person (yourself) if red is the majority
Are blue people a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths or something? Pressing blue just gives you a chance to murder someone, pressing red guarantees you don't murder anyone.

>>82572724
Blue is simply the death gamble "put yourself at risk like an idiot for no reason and expect other people to join in the suicide pact alongside you to fix your own mess" option, everybody choosing red is the logical conclusion but people wanna larp as martyrs so now they want us to join in a suicide pact to fix the problem they got themselves into

>>82566942
It explodes and you die, what now?

>>82555520
People call Blue button option the high trust society option but is it? A high trust society expects people to act rationally & lawfully. A low trust society fears people stealing water pipes for scrap metal. They trust individuals to not abuse the system not trust the majority to coddle and clean up for the minority. The few Right wingers who push this believe in magic blood which is just magic soil but for race.

>>82572308
the elaboration in the pic assumes that death is delivered unto the voters in order as they vote, and not all at once after all the votes are taken, as it would if it worked like any other vote. and that blue is the option that somehow staves off red. literally made up a different scenario to be mad at. is this one of the misunderstandings at play?

>>82572308
Far as I can tell blue button pushers were pressing it long before someone was intelligent enough to mention toddlers. Someone mentioned kids before me but as far as I remember I was the first I saw to mentioned toddlers and the color blind.
Before that I very seriously doubt more than a handful of blues thought of toddlers before making their choice.
I would be interested in seeing it if the rules said every adult. I doubt it would change much.

>>82573621
What are you talking about? No, I was shitting on the "everyone means everyone" assumption since it would include all those incapable of voting. Going by that logic, there is a good chance that everyone will be stuck in a room until everyone finished voting including those that can't/won't vote. Thus the only way for that to work is to wait until those that can't/won't vote starve to death.

File: Screenshot_2026-04-29-13-(...).jpg (341 KB, 1062x1288)

341 KB JPG

>>82573715
Some other guy explained why Red pressers don't think "everyone means everyone".
>Ok, so, here's the reason why Red picks red. The whole thought experiment is designed around choices. Red interprets "Everyone" as everyone with the agency and ability to make an informed choice. So, that's the reason why children are excluded from the experiment.

>Children are legally unable to consent to any.sort of legally binding contract, which the button is. So, if they are included, it is because the creator of this experiment is a sadist. And, if children, or the invalid were to be included, because they cannot make an informed choice, their caretaker would have to as well. Which then means that if they are executed, it's because their caretaker picked Blue for them, rather than guaranteeing their survival by picking Red.

>As for blind and visually impaired people, Red also assumes that the people conducting this experiment make the reasonable accommodations so that they may make their informed choice.

>In summary, Red picks red because they are going for the spirit of the thought experiment: which is should people save others from the consequences of their own informed decisions. If that is not the premise, and that people are forced to make an uninformed choice, then Red will act differently. IE, fight against the evil and sadistic system that is subjecting children to a death gamble

I think that it breaks the entire premise of the thought experiment. I just made this.

>>82573776
yeah, you're inevitably going to have someone vote in another's behalf, paralyzed people or people in comas cannot vote, but the poll says everyone, so they must submit their votes somehow, which means the only option they can do this rhetorical is by including the possibility of people in another's behalf, following this logic, it makes sense that we do the same for babies (even in squid game they were smart enough to not count baby votes despite being meant to be rich assholes who add rule twists in sadistic ways), and you either discount babies from the count or let the caretaker choose on their behalf, and since we're including everyone, we'll go with the latter, so really, if the caretaker chooses blue in the invalid person's behalf, they're essentially holding vulnerable people hostage unless you offer up to sacrifice yourself as well, which really makes the "what about muh babies!!?" argument extremely manipulative and thus immoral, so blue button people cannot claim the moral high-ground with these considerations of how the scenario would work, after all, how could a baby be physically able to press a button without being influenced by someone else into pressing one? how could a person in a coma or paralyzed person press a button on their own? you either vote blue in their behalf and hold them hostage for the sake of virtual signalling (immoral and manipulative), or agree that choosing red isn't inherently selfish nor evil (something that most blue button people arent willing to concede), either way, red wins the moral and logical argument

File: Screenshot (5120).png (406 KB, 625x489)

406 KB PNG

People who picked blue in this scenario:
Would your answer change if the threshold increased? For example, if 99% of people had to press the blue button? What's the lowest threshold where your choice changes to red?
For people who picked red: Same question. Is there a threshold low enough that you pick blue, such as if only 1% had to press the button?
Let's take the "'everyone' includes dumbass toddlers pressing the blue button at random" interpretation for these variations.
I think a lot of people would actually change their votes depending on the exact threshold, showing that it's not really a fundamental moral difference.

>>82573974
Red button man here, if the blue button threshold was 10%ish or less, i can trust that enough people voting to cross that threshold is doable and thus i'd be more comfortable picking blue, any more and there's no way i can trust that the majority wouldnt just vote red, either way, it depends on the order, if i was one of the first i'd pick red out of personal safety as that would be my first thought but if im sent later i could at least have time to wager whether it's worth jumping the shark or not

File: 20260501_161436.png (35 KB, 594x279)

35 KB PNG

>>82572308
>It was ruined because some random person said some bs about toddlers voting & the OP just replied "yes".
>>82573913
>yeah, you're inevitably going to have someone vote in another's behalf, paralyzed people or people in comas cannot vote, but the poll says everyone, so they must submit their votes somehow,
He doesn't address how people who are physically incapable of voting would vote yet we are expected to accept and assume that toddlers are included thus why I brought up the die of starvation scenario in >>82572308 pic.

>>82573776
The greentext says that spirit of the problem is a moral question so it assumes that there would be accomodations for trivial issues like color blindness.

File: 1681480543564974.png (155 KB, 976x850)

155 KB PNG

>>82555520
what if i press both buttons?

>>82573913
>the possibility of people in another's behalf,
Uh, did you mean to say vote in another's behalf? lol

>can vote to die
>unless enough people vote to die
The train you're on is about to go through a tunnel. The driver will stop if more than half the passengers stick their heads out the window, otherwise those that do will all die. Do you stick your head out? Fucking why?

>>82573974
I don't accept the retarded toddlers whataboutism. If they wanted to include children, they should have said so yet reposts of this problem never elaborate it in the OP. They just sneak it into the replies or call people evil for not assuming children would be involved despite adding a whole lot of questions to the problem. If kids are involved, I'm picking Blue but only if the threshold is 50%. I voted Red and I will not change it unless they stop being chicken shit and outright elaborate like I did in >>82572308 because it would reveal how retarded is their problem.

>>82574005
Since a retarded Twitter poll consistently fail to reach 60% Blue, I am assuming the percentage is much lower in real life with actual stakes. I don't even particularly value my own life that highly. I just hate the idea of dying for something so retarded.

>>82574022
well, since it says everyone, everybody must vote before the final votes' effects come into effect, you can't rush the vote by voting faster if the people who are stuck in there will die at the same time regardless of the majority's votes so suiciding yourself to try to save a bunch of people who are gonna die anyways, blue is still useless within your ideal scenario, if the votes cant finish then the voting can never end because there's a paralyzed guy lying in the floor who cant finish the vote and thus render the voting process useless because you're gonna live the rest of your living days without worrying about the blue button consequences because the paralyzed people died before they could leave, but if we assume that the paralyzed guys dying is gonna disqualify them and thus allow the voting stuff to actually end, blue is the lesser option anyways because you're suiciding yourself for a bunch of people who literally died before you could save them, AND if being paralyzed or in a coma somehow disqualified them from voting (even through this goes against the everyone premise from before), theres no way that they can get care fast enough before they die, you've got over 8 billion people voting so even if you're trying to speedrun taking the blue button to save their lives, its still gonna take a long time for them to get back in a hospital, those in middle of an operation will have their anesthesia wear off and suffer, those in a coma cannot be hydrated or fed in time before flatlining in the private room, those paralyzed could very well die before getting urgent care, its sort of like how thanos snapping away half of humanity would lead to a bajillion traffic accidents and shit that end up killing more people than it's worth, you take everybody away from their natural spots and shit is gonna hit the fan even for those invalid people you desperately want to save

>>82574346
those twitter polls are merely a fraction of twitter's population and do not represent all of humanity, a blue vote against billions of red button pressers isnt gonna do jack other than becoming a mere statistic after the fact

>>82555520
CAINE YOU FUCK

>>82564843
white monkies are so violent lmao. hey if you ever blast your tiny brains out, no one will care monkey

>>82555520
This is the most retarded question imaginable. Why the fuck would you ever press blue? The only people who would willingly press it are people who genuinely wish to die or people too stupid to not understand that there is literally zero benefit to anyone involved in this equation for pushing anything other than red.

>>82574352
No, I was saying that there is a small chance that enough people can vote Blue that it wouldn't matter what the others who can't/won't vote vote thus this blind retard god might end the voting prematurely. However, this assumes that the blind retard god is slightly less retarded. It is easier to bet on the blind retard god to be a retard because it demonstrated to be a blind retard. In most scenarios, a large chunk of humanity dies regardless of the choices.

>>82574375
Dont forget virtual signallers and false altruists who just want good boy points to moralfag and harass red button people

>>82574375
This is why Blue pressers keep sneaking in the children thing into the poll question without actually putting it there. They aren't interested in moral clarity; they just want to feel morally superior and that red pressers are evil for not assuming their completely disingenuous interpretation.

>>82574397
Well, isnt the question phrased like "everyone has to vote" with no mention of what happens if you dont vote? If not voting means you're trapped in a room until you die then whether everybody else is done voting or not isnt gonna save you nor kill you any quicker, you're still sacrificing yourself for people who are doomed to die even in a "blue wins" scenario because the voting cant end until the people who cant vote end up dead, the phrasing of the scenario does not account for those who dont vote but says that everyone has to vote, which means you have to assume that the vote can never end or that the vote can only end once the paralyzed people starve to death so that technically "everyone" alive managed to end the vote, you cant afford to account for the paralyzed because they're gonna die no matter what, in no place is it mentioned that the vote will end prematurely if everybody who was able to vote manages to vote before the people who cant, thats just adding shit to make blue seem like the better option, which isnt too unlike those Twitter polls that kept reframing the question to make the blue button option more favorable than the red button or at worst reframed the question under the biased assumption that red button people just want to kill people (instead of simply wanting everybody to survive without stupidly risking their lives in a suicide pact death gamble)

>>82574451
I feel like even children would understnad the basic premise of "Button that does nothing" vs "Button that can kill you".

>>82574451
Its weird too because why would this hypothetical child vote for blue out of all options? Its been argued against before in this thread and everything >>82570959

>>82574486
>>82574487
Because they want to guilt trip you to pressing the Blue button by adding literal toddlers into the equation like >>82574022 pic

Red pushers seething itt
Your wall of text will never hide your black heart, scoundrel

The real reason people push blue is because they either haven't thought about it very much (A big portion) or thought about the former too much (the rest)
Some people just hear something advantageous to a group and pick it by default.
No, making the scenario about a woodchipper is not the same scenario. You do not in the slightest bit understand human psychology if you think that.
>"Do your chores, please" - man with gun to your head
>"Do your chores, please" - your mother
This is not the same statement, even if you want to pretend otherwise
There was a study years ago where they showed people the same footage of a car crash and asked them to guess how fast it was going
The trick was that they described it differently on the questionnaire
They called it a crash for some, and a collision for others
The result? People CONSISTENTLY rated the speed as lower when it was described as a collision.
Would I press blue in a realistic scenario? Depends on what you mean by realistic. I get a prompt on my phone to vote? Blue. I get a bag pulled over my head, thrown in the back of a van and dragged to a quiet room with two buttons? Probably Red.

>>82555520
Sir, this is /trash. We anonymously type fuck each other while talking about race bait.

>>82575287
This is gayest thread on /trash/ because of this reply >82575070

>>82555520
There is literally zero benefit to pressing the blue button.
It's not altruism to choose the pointless risk. It's stupidity. You're not risking yourself to save others, you're deliberately tossing your life away to preserve the lives of other people who deliberately tossed their lives away.
If "the majority" press the blue button, the exact same thing happens as would happen if _everyone_ presses the red button.
This is not a dilemma. It's a "do you want to die" question. People who want to die will press the blue button. Everyone else will press the red one. If nobody dies, that means either everyone pressed the red button, or at least 51% of the people who pressed a button are now dissapointed and think it was a fake.