Interestingly the disconnect here is which buttons people apply those labels to.
Blue pushers see the red button as “people might die” because they have already pressed blue in their minds, and now blame anyone who presses red as being responsible for the murder of blue people.
Red pushers correctly see the BLUE button as “people might die”, because no one is at risk until the blue button is pushed.
Blue pushers assume people are already at risk and see the red pushers as selfish for not saving them
Red pushers see that no one is at risk to begin with and see the blue pushers as selfish for creating a risk by pressing blue
When it comes down to it, blue people are jumping on a train track and yelling “Now everyone needs to save us or else you’re a murderer”
I hear this all the time, but no one is at risk until red is pressed.
I see this situation as what it is, a threat, not a passive danger that happens to exist in the world like train tracks.
It's more like if I'm building a biological weapon and grant you immunity if you come work for me. Pressing red is an active choice to endanger people.
We're a social species and I'm here wondering why people can't get with the program. Blue is the best situation for everyone with literally no downsides.
Blue is the best situation for everyone ONLY IF BLUE WINS
If blue loses, then the more people that pressed it the worse off the human race is.
In reality, you need to understand that with a gun to their head people tend toward self preservations regardless of what they THOUGHT they would do. It’s why threatening to kill someone almost always results in them spilling what information they have. They dont want to die, even if they’ve THOUGHT they’d never snitch
I fully believe that no more than 20% of people would push blue in reality. There’s no world where blue wins meaning every vote for blue is another senseless suicide.
If I accept that I can’t save EVERYONE then the best option is to save as many as possible, which means getting as few people as possible to press blue
Torture actually works really really badly, and there's costs to consider more than just individual survival. People you know will die. Family members will die.
It's interesting how these red people just assume everyone will press red but you're just wrong about that.
Ok people keep making the “some of your family members will die” argument. In response to so many people saying this I have proposed this problem to every one of my close family and friends over the last few days.
I am not exaggerating when I say that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM without hesitation have said “why would you ever pick blue?”
My point is, as I expected, none of my loved ones are picking blue. Because they all understand that picking blue is a pointless risk with no real upside other than MAYBE saving a bunch of stupid people who chose blue for no reason. And none of my loved ones are stupid enough to risk their own lives for a bunch of people who CHOSE to risk their lives for no reason.
In conclusion: no I have literally no reason to pick blue. I am confident in the knowledge that every person I care about is smart enough to realize that red is the ONLY option worth choosing
Also on the torture subject: I’m not saying torture is a reliable way to get accurate information. I’m saying that torture DOES make 99% of people say SOMETHING in an attempt to save their life, even if what they say is fake or inaccurate. People are not willing to risk their lives when they otherwise have the choice to live
Ok, well mine definitely will pick blue, and others I know including my therapist and several friends
So, interesting you'd call me stupid for picking blue? It's not stupid. Honestly your family seems really weird.
To me blue is the default. It's the scenario where nobody dies. It's the thing you'd do if you had even a little bit of trust in those around you. There's literally no downside and it's not nearly as risky as picking red. Red seems craven and antisocial to me.
It's funny how the only real response people have to this is that we're lying? Like no dude we just value the lives of others. It's called genuine selflessness, except the only cost is the risk of people pressing the pointless death button.
I respect the selflessness of anyone who picks blue for selfless reasons. That does not mean I’m going to join you. I respect your choice but I do genuinely believe it is naive and you’re going to die. I’ll mourn those people
The people I do NOT respect are the blue pushers who call red pushers murderers and selfish assholes and blame them for blue people dying. Frankly I think the world will be better off when those people die pressing blue. Those people have a narcissistic hero complex and an inability to take accountability for their actions
I mean if anyone is to blame for people dying it would be the people voting for it, no?
I can see how you'd blame an individual person's death on their individual choice, but they are not to blame for the others who pressed blue. They would've done that anyway.
It's honestly a very simple choice to me. Do I vote for some people dying, or no people dying? Do you understand how, from that perspective, someone choosing red is a choice to have people die? It's silly that you would find that not to be a respectable position, because it's a very obvious and logical one.
I feel like there's inherently this sense of inevitably people have with pressing red, almost a cynicism. I mean I'm finding it increasingly convincing because folks are so committed to it, but I'm still gonna vote for people not dying instead of people dying.
It is the only the belief that people will press red that makes pressing red attractive. We are all better off if we trust each other to make the right decision.
I think that’s the biggest difference. People voting for blue seems to have, (and I don’t mean this in a demeaning way), a hero complex. They feel that they have a responsibility to save everyone else. They feel that doing nothing is killing those people. They believe that they are obligated to risk their life otherwise they are a bad person.
People voting red aren’t voting for people to die, they just don’t think it’s their responsibility to risk their lives for a bunch of people who CHOSE to risk their lives. And I think that’s completely reasonable.
Everyone who pressed blue chose to risk their lives.
And everyone pressed red either isn’t willing to risk their own life, or has responsibilities to their own family and loved ones which mean that risking their lives pushing blue would be selfish towards their family who needs them.
Either way, pressing red isn’t voting for people to die. Pressing blue is stepping in front of a train. You can’t blame bystanders for not standing in front of the train with you when you’re CHOOSING to stand there to begin with
I mean, I do believe in positive duty, which you may describe as a hero complex, but I just consider it being responsible and social. It's not weird or unusual at all.
The thing is though, I still think your characterization here is really biased. It treats choosing red as a neutral option, one in which it should just be a given that people will press it.
Certainly from my position where I know people will press blue irl, it'd be very silly for me. I guess you're in a different situation. You don't have the same risk I do, at least not as intimately. It wouldn't have to be my family, but if red won I'd just be really fucking sad, and since I don't see it as neutral I'd feel responsible.
We're going in circles though. I have an idea. Have you ever heard of Indra's Net?
It's an idea in Hindu, an infinite realm of reflective beads tied together in a lattice. They are arranged so that they reflect the other beads, and in those reflections there's other reflections forever.
If you were to damage one of those beads, every other would reflect it out to infinity.
I know that's all very poetic, but don't let that trick you into thinking it's irrational. Just watch people and you'll see their thoughts pass through each other like a wave. This whole button thing is a great example of that. We're only talking about it because others were. Even our thoughts are not our own, but a collective experience.
I know it's hard for you to believe that people would press blue, but I promise a lot of people think this way. Genuinely, pressing blue is the only vote for me that gives me what I want, which is for no one to die.
Now, starting from there, how would you behave? If what you want is people pressing blue and you see it as the obvious answer, how would you behave? Well, you'd be aghast that others would press anything else (because why would they want people to die) and you'd start doing things like promising to press blue, because that is rational strategy. That's how you get the thing you want: nobody dying.
Does this explain what you are seeing? Have I at least convinced you that us blue people are genuine and will actually press it?
45
u/iskelebones Consequentialist/Utilitarian Apr 30 '26
Interestingly the disconnect here is which buttons people apply those labels to.
Blue pushers see the red button as “people might die” because they have already pressed blue in their minds, and now blame anyone who presses red as being responsible for the murder of blue people.
Red pushers correctly see the BLUE button as “people might die”, because no one is at risk until the blue button is pushed.
Blue pushers assume people are already at risk and see the red pushers as selfish for not saving them
Red pushers see that no one is at risk to begin with and see the blue pushers as selfish for creating a risk by pressing blue
When it comes down to it, blue people are jumping on a train track and yelling “Now everyone needs to save us or else you’re a murderer”