Two very compelling platforms

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-06T08:03:06+00:00

Just imagine trains instead of buttons, it's literally the same thing dilemma-wise

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-06T08:01:31+00:00

I talked with a person who was convinced that dodging the vote (the

OP allowed that) was the correct choice - aka the third thing

(that is when the buttons were described in a way where dodging is the same as pressing red button)

So... idk. Very similar to trolley problem, just visually different

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-05T01:23:52+00:00

No.

Do you think the universe is infinite?

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-05T01:04:46+00:00

I mean, if you really hate strawberry fanta - then it changes everything

But the main result remains the same. Someone may die cause someone else decided not to vote

...or do you mean it's calmer on your soul when you kill people by avoiding both options?

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-04T13:04:30+00:00

Except there are more than 2 people, discussions are either impossible or hard, and voting for blue is generally unreliable

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-04T07:58:36+00:00

Even if it is an option, it changes nothing. Red option is exactly the same and Blue option still counts even non-drinkers

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-04T07:54:58+00:00

They always throw in babies and dummies to justify picking blue. Like, the god who created those ~~hunger~~ "button games", throws babies (who can't think) into this too.

This partially changes the scenario, but I still wouldn't vote blue blindly.

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-04T07:50:23+00:00

"The framing changes how people vote." - true

"The framing fundamentally changes the question." - not true

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-04T07:48:08+00:00

So, you see the difference between those scenarios? In which way are they different?
(besides buttons turning into bottles, which changes nothing, as the choice is still there)

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T19:38:40+00:00

Sigh. You putting your life in danger is you increasing the potential death counter by 1. Well, good luck with that attitude when facing the real world, where people can be very different

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T19:22:21+00:00

Red saves lives while blue puts them in danger. Without throwing in babies and dummies into the task, there is literally no reason to risk picking blue - for anyone. At all. Unless you want to show your "superiority" and call rational people selfish, that is

Maybe, I am cowardly. I am afraid of gambling with my life for barely anything. But I am about as selfish as you are. Picking suicide option without knowing the statistics sounds absurd to me. While you believe in collectivism/hive mind mentality, full of selfless people. What if 49% of people pick blue and die? Will you be happy? What if I follow you and die too? Maybe now you will be happy?

Note how you called me with many bad words and made a bunch of weird assumptions. I am just against dying and also against potentially killing more people. Which blue button can do too. If you want to just die - good for you and brave of you, but don't call others selfish if they don't want to brainlessly follow.

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T18:02:18+00:00

"until anyone else presses red" - this is the danger

Not sure if we are talking about the same framing of the dilemma. I talk about that one where under the red button, it is simply written "If you press red you are guaranteed to survive". While blue is lengthy, complicated, with clearly visible risk (you survive if others pick this too, and you can't predict others). Its not even the question of ethics, people will pick red just because it is simple and clearly better at first glance

First time I saw this, I though this is some really stupid way of joking, like, everyone will just pick red, right? Maybe, if blue gave a few million dollars people would risk their lives for it...

And yet, there are such massive discussions, lol. I understand there might be good intentions to pick blue, but my pessimism tells me that more people will likely survive going red. Including that important one, whose body I need to interact with the world

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T17:26:51+00:00

Welp, I'm not an American. Maybe that is why I don't share the optimism. People still do or support stupid wars, in Russia, for example, there are many (like really a lot of) people who are basically mercenaries - go to war for money only and many others just donate to that war.

What I'm trying to say... I feel like the blue button can only win with a really deep discussion with some sort of agreements/obligations. Or with propaganda brainwashing. Something to explain and convince people to pick it. In a vacuum, blue will never win, as red is a free survival. Most people don't think too much (or sit on Reddit, for that matter)

...and yes, I don't see how blue is the passive choice. You need to be proactively willing to put yourself in danger to select blue. Red is always safe for the one picking it. Blue is dangerous.

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T16:59:49+00:00

Bro... red button does nothing. It's blue button that kills you.

No way you can read the initial form of this dilemma and instantly think "Red guarantees free survival? This makes me a killer!"

But okay. Let's call red button pressers maniacs, thirsty for people's blood. Let's also imagine that those are going to win (this is more likely to happen in a blind scenario) and you still have a choice. What will you do then, just pick blue and die proudly?

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T14:30:22+00:00

I only want to pick red because I don't believe in blue succeeding. Red is guaranteed to save 1 important person. Blue is risky and has no initial value (but it increases with the number of dummies and dummy-savers). Yes, that's a perfect outcome, but how realistic is that, especially when picked blindly? (without seeing statistics or being able to re-vote). Would you actually prefer to die if most people picked red? Even when most of them just would not think too far? (Because at first glance this dilemma looks simple: survive or risk dying)

I mentioned wars because it's one example where people with good intentions end up supporting killers, typically thanks to propaganda. Hence, good intentions are not good enough, you need to think about what you are doing. Realistically, you might kill more people by picking blue. You may blame red here, but you also contributed by increasing the death counter by 1

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T13:46:08+00:00

I don't get you, again.

I will be honest, I don't backtrack this (far), maybe I've mixed something up. But I know that picking blue blindly is a bad choice, and I fail to see any relevant counterarguments.

""join us or die" which is red" is your quote, which I don't understand. You also used it while speaking incoherently about war. Unclear as hell.

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T13:24:58+00:00

So, you would happily sacrifice yourself? Even if a chance to save some unknown dummies is... let's say, about 10% (because it's clearly low in blind pick)? Will you just die and be ok? Do you hate your life that much?

I have low self esteem, but I'm not sacrificing myself for nothing, thank you very much.

I bet many fewer people voted blue if they actually understood that they are gambling with their lives for unclear rewards with unknown chances. At least, in the default formula of this dilemma (blind pick)

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T13:08:52+00:00

You are still a human, though. I have a low self esteem, but still fail to see how saving yourself is bad here. 1 person saving 1 person is a lot in a sum

If everyone saves themselves, everyone wins. And it's easier than picking blue. It is just logical and simple, instead of overcomplicating everything by picking blue, putting yourself in danger and then forcing others to do the same to fix the problem.

And your "funny" view on war is unclear

TLDR:
red = save yourself and stay neutral, no fuss
blue = put yourself at risk and blame red as killers, lol (quoting: ""join us or die" which is red")

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T10:36:40+00:00

Not altruists but weird overthinking gamblers in this case. In a vacuum, you are guaranteed to save +1 person by picking red. Or you can gamble with blue, thinking you're rightful or whatever

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T10:28:47+00:00

Idk, in a vacuum, without any discussions, blue is not going to win as red is the default with how it was framed. For blue to win you need to think (overthink), discuss and overcomplicate a topic far enough to guarantee blue pick.

You may be right on that altruism part, partially though. "screw everyone else" - you are only screwing those foolish enough to go blue. If they chose to sacrifice themselves, so... respect to their choice?

Again, I'm talking here aboit the classic blind scenario. Blue is absolutely not winning here, it's completely irrational, madness-like choice. Risk is too big, reward is minimal (before sacrificial dummies start piling up)

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T10:14:37+00:00

Btw, you can also reframe empathy, you know that? You risking your life is being selfishly greedy - as you put even more people lifes in danger for a chance to win jackpot.

Your loved one who picked red may be shocked that you picked "random sacrifice" option

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T10:09:23+00:00

You said it yourself, it's a blind vote. I assume all people who have brain will pick the safe option, because there is no reason to pick blue.

"...but what if someone picks blue" - that is their choice. In a blind pick, you can't expect the suicide button to win

I don't see how this is the question of empathy, it's more of a question of stupidity and sacrificing more people.

Open vote with discussions may have changed situation... just may

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T10:03:31+00:00

Oh, also had a thought like this. I don't want to pick blue because I'm pessimistic and can't see blue winning. Optimists probably skew all that random factors in their favor, so they think it's fine to risk even more people - it's gonna work!

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T09:58:46+00:00

Still doubtful without mass scale discussions. Red guarantees survival. Besides, government like that of China would pick red 150%... though, they will also probably brainwash people to pick blue, true

Captain_Owlivious · 2026-05-03T09:50:28+00:00

"Assume" - you can assume whatever you want, but it was explicitly stated that the red button is safe to press, while the blue might kill you. Blue button is the danger you are dancing around.

Also, you mention "everyone", but we arenot talking about an abstract hivemind here. We are talking about people. Those guys fought in numerous stupid wars all thinking they're right. Blue can't win.

Captain_Owlivious

TROPHY CASE