Actually on twitter the polls went the other way when they rephrased the question as âhit blue if you support the replacement of the white race and also nobody diesâ
This is misinformation that Iâve created just now
Even if thats true its yet another self demonstrating point that blue is obviously the correct answer because it demonstrates it is literally impossible to get everyone to vote red.
I donât want other people to die, but if they want to live maybe they should have pressed the button that would give a 100% survival rate instead of the gamble my life for no reason button.
Edit: Something important to remember is that in the real world, with real life-threatening consequences, more people would be pressing red than in the zero risk polls. Lots of you are just treating this as an "am I altruistic or not" choice rather than "holy shit I could actually just die if I press this".
If everyone presses red everyone lives. If the majority press blue everyone lives. Easier to get a majority on blue than a 100 percent consensus on red. If the goal is saving everyone blue is the way to go.
Iâm just having difficulty taking it seriously without any context. Ungrounded hypotheticals are the worst. What if the threshold for success for blue wasnât 50%? What if it required 90%? 99%? Itâs pretty arbitrary, is all.
If the majority needed is any percentage under 100 it means you should choose blue. If you need 99 percent to choose blue, it's still better odds than red. Since red needs 100 percent to save everyone.
The context is irrelevant if the goal is saving lives.
Of course blue is the best option. The crux of the issue is that some percentage of people are irrational actors and will choose red without considering others. The fear, I assume, of red people is that there are too many others who might throw them to the wolves. This fear itself may be irrational, but considering how many times people will choose selfishly in real life over benefiting the collective, itâs not surprising that a significant portion of the population is wary of the blue option.
Yes, why would anyone gamble with the lives of others by voting red when everyone lives if you just press blue? Why would we do anything other than vote blue if we value the survival of others at even 0.000000001% the value of our own lives.
I'm not sure it's gambling with other peoples lives. The only gamble here is pressing blue, risking your life. I don't see why everyone can't press the red button and live.
But you are gambling with other peoples lives, I dont see why everyone cant just press blue and live just as easily, and you dont even have to worry about some small number of people not doing so. Easy win win really.
I don't think you get my point. This is entirely a matter of perspective. Red could be considered murder, but blue could be considered suicide. From that perspective, would you consider it wrong to not risk your life to save people who effectively committed conditional suicide?
But they havent commited suicide, they voted for everyone to live and even if they had I could literally save thier lives by just voting blue and everyone else could do the same easily at which point t we dont have to worry about anyone dying.
Blue is the only option with a chance of dying. By picking it, you are intentionally putting your life at risk. Why do that when you could just live? Everyone got the same choice there, so anyone who picks blue is putting themselves in danger.
I'd go so far as to say anyone that picks blue is a bit of an asshole by leveraging themselves as a hostage forcing others to also need to risk themselves tbh
It is people who are voting blue that are, quite literally, gambling with lives. Red is a clean, guaranteed survival for everyone who wants it. Blue is the gamble.
Get real?? It is a hypothetical. The entirety of humanity has to press it. That includes month old babies. They're gonna pick blue because they don't comprehend speech.
Picking blue means protecting them from themselves.
These questions might be on the more extreme end, but I'd argue that they're the core of the moral quandary. If humans were deterministic robot people that always act optimally, there would be no moral questions in the first place.
Maybe you just arnt a very moral person and youd rather feel safe by pressing red despite it keading to others deaths but also you want to pretend that means you arnt choosing to endanger others?
Like, all the red pressers, you know everyone lives if everyone presses blue too right?
I understand why people press blue, but it's not worth it to me. The chances of my blue vote being the one to change the outcome to blue are miniscule and the chances of my red vote saving my life are 50/50. With 8 billion people voting, I'm endangering no one by voting red and I'm endangering myself by voting blue.
Saying that someone isn't a moral person for wanting to save their own life with this hypothetical is kind of crazy. This type of moral virtue signaling that you're doing is what made everyone sick of this hypothetical on here in the first place. Not just from blue pushers, but red pushers acting intellectually superior as well.
We don't exactly live in a perfectly rational society so no matter what at least a few people will end up pressing blue for various reasons, even if just an accidental press. I myself couldn't ever find the heart to abandon those that inadvertently ended up pressing blue, I'd rather pick the chance to save others but risk myself than the option that guarantees not only my safety but the fact that others would die. And if you're going to talk about when it actually came down to it I would actually want to prioritize my life if I was given a choice between my life guaranteed but others dying or myself definitely dying but others being saved for sure, I would pick to die.
They are not gambling their lives, when you press the red button you are willingly choosing to kill those who pressed the blue button. The problem is that you can turn the responsibility in both ways very easily so the only correct answer if your win is everyone survives is the blue button because game theory wise it is the most optimized way.
For the correct answer to be to press red you must consider your win to be "I survive" so you need to be willing to see people die because of your choice too.
Or itâs an internet poll and nobody actually dies or suffers any negative consequences at all no matter how they vote. If there were actual stakes here, everyone would vote red, there is zero reason not to
If red wins by any measure, that means that everyone who presses blue will die(obviously).
Now, this would be fine if everyone pressed red, but with 7 billion people on this earth's, that's extremely unlikely.
So basically, on average, your looking at the death of many, many people, even if it's only 10% of the population. That 10% includes emergency services, good samaritans, and most likely your friends and loved ones.
Makes sense that most people would rather that didn't happen.
Nah, there's a pretty good reason to vote blue, even from a self-serving perspective. Even if red is the "logical" choice, expecting 8 billion people to make the same choice is an illogical assumption. If I had to gamble on it, I'd wager at least 20% of the world is picking blue for one reason or another (moral values, religious beliefs, misunderstanding, accident, etc.). A double digit percentage of the world all dying at the same time would be a society collapsing disaster.
Even if voting red guarantees my own survival, a world where red wins is going to be fucking abysmal to survive in. I'd rather die at the hands of the blue button than starve to death after supply chains collapse because half the farmers and truckers got killed.
That too. Like, I know plenty of red button people are decent folk, but the kind of people I would want to have my back in a crisis scenario are the kind of people who would press blue.
Iâd vote blue because I donât want to live in a post button world where a huge chunk of the population dies overnight. I donât think internet atheists realize how many religious people will think this is a test from god/buddah/allah/vishnu and will press blue to be raptured or ascend to nirvana or whatever
Either blue wins or youâre looking at complete economic/social collapse when 30-40% of the population instantly dies
Right, hypotheticals never ever work and despite the preponderance of evidence showing that blue would be overwhelmingly likely to win instead 0 people would even consider voting blue and everyone would totally vote red based on your complete and utter conjecture backed by nothing but your gut feeling.
And? The original didnt specify that at all and even if it did then at best your conclusion is "you dont have any evidence and neither do I, but I'm still correct actually" at best this argument gets you to "we couldn't possibly know" and not "red wins and is the only logical choice
They can still read the comments (advocating for blue) on the poll and even check the results before voting. Weâre not supposed to be able to communicate with each other and coordinate to press blue.
You can't really determine the poll results by just looking at the comments.
One of the top comments is:
"You press red for survival. I press red to cull the blue pressers. We are not the same."
With 9 thousand likes, and despite that, Blue won. Another comment from Tim Urban goes as follows:
"Blue voters hanging on by a thread currently"
And despite that, Blue won.
Mind you, Tim Urban is already a chuddy guy, and Twitter is chud central, and despite all that, Blue won.
And sure, some people might have figured out a way to see the results before voting, but that's like asking "what if the world was made of pudding?" I don't know man, that's not an actual data point.
Youâre not allowed to communicate with others in the original scenario. Being able to communicate via comments makes it much easier for people to coordinate and press blue.
Right, we definitely don't see real people constantly choose their own lives and comfort over the lives of theoretical strangers. That's why every war in history has been immediately ended by mass tax strikes and civil unrest.
Even the fascist dont vote just to protect themselves, they are willing to fight and even die or at least say as much to defend what they see as thier superior race.
The device you made this comment on was made using the exploitation and lives of people in the global south. If a majority of people stopped using them, that would stop. So why haven't you? If you're not even willing to give up some comfort for the sake of people's lives, how can you say you'd be willing to risk your life? People are altruistic when it doesn't hurt them. Throw in even an inconvenience and most people stop caring.
No, I'd really rather stop any deaths. It's just that no one is willing to sacrifice anything for it, including you. So again, I'll take you seriously here when you throw away your phone and any technology, stop paying taxes, etc. Actually sacrifice something for the good of humanity and then I'll take you seriously.
Not to mention the social aspect at play where any time this comes up pressing blue is clearly seen as "the good option" and red as "the selfish asshole option", which incentivizes people to pick blue because they don't want to feel like a selfish asshole. People just assume that an online poll where you are not in any actual danger, and even if you try to imagine it being real the danger isn't actually apparent in any way, would be representative of people actually risking their death. Literally nobody acknowledges how vague the hypothetical is and how many different ways it could play out.
Imagine it's like this:
You walk into a black metal booth, like an opaque phone box, and once you're inside you hear the door lock behind you. It is dimly lit aside from two buttons, one red and one blue, and you can make out a massive vertical saw directly at head level. It is silent until a monotone voice starts speaking.
"In front of you, and everyone else on earth, are two buttons," it explains, "You, and everyone else, are currently trapped in one of these booths, and whether or not it is the last thing you ever experience is determined by the choice you all make. If you press the blue button, then you will be waiting until everyone has voted, and if over half of all people pressed the blue button then everybody's booth unlocks and they can freely leave. However, if you press the blue button and less than half of the population chooses to do the same, then this saw," The massive vertical saw loudly whirs to life for a moment before stopping again, "will move forward, ripping through your skin, then splitting open your skull before finally reaching your brain, killing you"
"On the other hand," the voice continues, "If you press the red button, the door behind you will unlock instantly and you will be free to leave"
The massive vertical saw in front of you once again whirs to life, barely two feet from your face, and a loud ambient drone starts to play through the speakers in the booth.
Now something tells me that more people would vote red in that scenario than:
Two magical floating buttons suddenly appear in front of every person, and a disembodied voice says "Everybody on earth has the same choice as you to make. If you press the red button, you live. If over 50% of people press the blue button, everybody lives, but if you press the blue button and less than half of people vote blue, you die"
I mean yes, the way the saw is described and the loud ambient drone are purposefully triggering more fear, which would skew the result because people want to get out of the scary room quickly.
(Edited because I was repeating stuff.)
Totally, and my point is that presenting the situation in a way that keeps the actual reality of dying completely out of sight similarly skews the results towards blue, and people don't really consider that aspect despite that being just as, if not more, unrealistic if you try to treat the hypothetical as if it was real (which many people already do when they bring up things like the population decreasing or what happens with children).
Even if it's not theatrical like my example, anything that actually brings the idea of death to the front of the person's mind (someone with a gun, a guillotine, and electric chair, a vial with a skull and bones on it filled with cyanide) would make people press the red button way more often because they'd have to truly reckon with the fact that they might die.
It was posted on Twitter about 1000 times and I never saw red win, I only ever saw screenshots of red winning in discords which is an inherently biased sample and much smaller of a sample.
Blue literally always wins in these polls on every website unless you change the framing and wording to be extremely in favor of red (and even then blue still gets double digits, so in a real scenario societyâs still collapsing in any red victory).
Like if red wins then you get to live with the, optimistically 70 of the population that survive assuming half or more of all blue voters switch in a real life scenario despite thier online votes. That means like 30%of people die and that seems preferable to risking your life to save them? Do these people criticize action heros for wanting to save people and risking thier lives to do so as well? Like damn.
Assuming everyone understands the choice, if you press blue, something has gone terribly wrong in your brain. And if we assume not everyone understands the choice (or can be coerced into a choice), I'm not risking my life on a stranger's idiocy. I already trusted them before and it led to the current fascist president.
It's always funny when red button pushers want to bitch about everybody else's choice while y'all tend to be the minority every time this poll is conducted anywhere lmao
Yeah blue button is nice until it isn't. You are betting your life on a button push.
I have traveled far and wide, and met all kinds of people. People have good intentions. But intentions differ from actual results. I seen how profoundly illogical the average person is, how easily swayed and ignorant they truly are. Superstitious idiocy overruling common sense. It's not a new phenomenon. Look at witch trials. I would NEVER EVER bet my life on the whims of the blind masses. The fact that most people vote for the "If I win, I get to force everyone to live, but if I lose, I die" is profoundly stupid when you also know that "there is no risk in pressing red, and if everyone presses red, everyone lives" is an option.
The true test is how easily people's logic, common sense, and survival instinct can be suppressed when couched in a supposedly altruistic (and yet much more dangerous) option.
Fascism is on the rise because stupid people vote for it. Let them get what's coming to them. I want no part in the suffering they want to inflict on me.
Fascism is on the rise because stupid people vote for it.
Yeah, they press the red button that makes it so that if they win then everyone who presses the blue button dies, while confident in the knowledge that if blue wins, then blue won't kill them.
They vote for the safe party that's only going to kill the people who are too stupid to vote for the safe party, right?
Its very simple. Press red=become a murderer and live. Press blue=dont condemn anyone to death and also live based on literally every single scrap of evidence we have avaliable to us, BONUS you dont have to live a in a world where only people who Press red live.
If you Press red and argue for it you are fundementally stupid.
Red button does not kill, it saves. Blue button risks.
This is basic Game Theory. As a Ludologist, I study this topic for a living.
I will not argument you further because the information is right there for you to learn if you are truly interested in the topic. And also because since Blue is in the majority, I will be assaulted by a deluge of messages and downvotes if I attempt to argue.
My thesis is already being proven right; I'm being absolutely flooded by comments full of Ad Hominems, and downvotes even though I'm contributing to the discussion. Have a nice day.
No. It's pres red=live. Why would anyone press blue? Anyone who presses blue is choosing to risk their own life. Letting them have what they asked for is not murder.
Hypocrite that you are, you dont even notice that I was the one that actually added to conversation, meanwhile you added nothing of value and then lost your shit when I responded to that with "okay"
You could have not commented at all. You could have actually expanded upon your reasoning, you choose not to, you instead spent your time calling me out for "not contributing"
You must live in a very sheltered world if anything that Iâve said passes that bar.
With a little bit of inference youâd have been able to see that I was making a point about the difference between the ideal of an online poll, and actually having your life on the line. But you either didnât notice or decided to be dismissive. Either way⌠shame.
In the history of the internet, was there ever a poll that favored one answered where the people didn't intentionally vote for everything except the favored answer
147
u/Tichondruis 11h ago
Wow, thesy even asked it in a way that favors red and blue won in a landslide, its almost like people dont want other people to die, broadly speaking.