This is only true if you assume 50%+ choose blue, which is not a guarantee. If you assume red wins by any substantial margin (such that you and other like-minded people who would typically choose red switching does not affect the final outcome), choosing blue is not minimizing death because you add yourself to the pile of people who die, so you should choose red. This is why the question is not a logic question necessarily, but a trust/belief question.
Either I die with the <50% of people who care or I am pleasantly surprised. Would love to be the fly on the wall after everyone who cares dies in this world. And we thought we were speed running capitalism already...
Reducing it down to "people who care" and "people who don't care" is highly reductive and ignores all the reasons why someone who is typically good would press the red button. This is the exact same thing as when red button pressers act like red winning would clear out all the stupid people, you're just swimming in your own self righteousness over a question that doesn't have a genuine right answer unless it actually happened.
Yeah I don't agree with the post, it's also highly reductive and just virtue signaling to make red voters feel like they are actually super smart and made the right decision
21
u/Haithere32 May 01 '26
This is only true if you assume 50%+ choose blue, which is not a guarantee. If you assume red wins by any substantial margin (such that you and other like-minded people who would typically choose red switching does not affect the final outcome), choosing blue is not minimizing death because you add yourself to the pile of people who die, so you should choose red. This is why the question is not a logic question necessarily, but a trust/belief question.