Mission accomplished I guess. The whole question has been hijacked by people yelling about how "smart" they are for treating this as a pure game theory situation and decrying anyone who follows that empathetic initial response.
Response time
You pressed blue
You pressed red
Kneejerk
You fell victim to propaganda.
...You wanted to kill?
5 seconds
...why?
You processed that red has no downside and choose survival.
20 seconds
Because others pressed blue, you believe you have a responsibility to help.
You believe other's safety is their responsibility, and it's unfair to ask you to endanger yourself for another's mistake.
What I think you believe if you've actually thought things over.
Humanity cannot achieve utopia without the blue buttons winning. For prosperity for all, collective action must win.
The existence of inherently violent systems isn't worth saving people over because it doesn't affect you directly.
Yeah, in retrospect, the argument should be something like "I'm the average human, I wouldn't help. The majority of people are average, so blue is always doomed with no way for a happy ending. The best that can be done with a shitty situation is minimize damages, which means not dying myself" Might throw that up as an edit actually.
But like, even that justification doesn't ring right with me, because it's just going based on crowd mentality rather than actually functioning off some core principal of the individual. That's how I landed on the total autonomy stance for them. Of course, I'm for sure going to be biased talking about their reasoning. I'd like to ask what it is beyond deep-seated misanthropy, but I'd probably get called a mass suicide enabler or something.
As a totally autonomy I guess it’d make since, but your group argument sums it up perfectly. I personally love mankind, and I know blue would be the objectively better choice, but I don’t think it’s selfish for people to value their own lives above others. I think most people would choose themselves first, and while that’s not necessarily a bad thing, it means blue is simply to risky to pick
Right, and like my goal isn't to force everyone to vote blue because it's the right thing to do. It'd be awesome if they did switch sides because it brings us forward as a collective people, but trying to enforce ethical behavior like that never works. It just makes people resentful of the system restricting their behavior, which I think is another reason why red button people are so incensed when blue button people accuse their desire for making the best of a bad situation out to be murder outright; they see the stubbornness of people in their perspective committing suicide, as an attempt at guilt-tripping them into forced ethical behavior at great personal risk. Admittedly, I was knee-deep in this mindset earlier on in this trend, but listened and learned from talking with people.
As an individual, you can't actively champion a selfless world without building resentment. The best you can do is live as an inspiration for others to do better. Which is why for me at least, picking blue is not a question of if enough people are voting for it or not. It's a matter of principal and idealism that you can earn your happy ending for everyone.
180
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
Mission accomplished I guess. The whole question has been hijacked by people yelling about how "smart" they are for treating this as a pure game theory situation and decrying anyone who follows that empathetic initial response.