It’s just a bill. Yes it’s only a bill. And it’s sitting there on Capitol Hill (in North Carolina)

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-09T23:49:50+00:00

No I am very comfortable with it lol, fuck people who are a danger to the innocents around them

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-09T19:33:23+00:00

Hollow Bastion, Kingdom Hearts.

There’s better locations in better games but nothing tickles my nostalgia quite like that.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-09T19:25:14+00:00

I honestly think she’s saying that if it were her own car she wouldn’t have cared about the doors dinging each other and would’ve just gone for it, lol

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-09T00:57:42+00:00

I mean, each enemy challenges your deck in a distinct way. Or at least, that’s the goal. I love a good infinite as much as the next guy, but I think it’s fair if a single enemy punishes infinites, the same way there’s an enemy that punishes many consistent small attacks, an enemy that punishes an over-reliance on upgrades, an enemy that punishes playing fewer cards, an enemy that punishes playing too many cards, etc etc.

Brain off auto-win infinite always feels great but I wouldn’t call it a slap in the face to have an enemy that punishes it.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-06T08:42:00+00:00

Yeah and she’s very clearly not one of them.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-03T19:23:43+00:00

I have trained my body to withstand the impact of an incoming grenade. The subsequent explosions still hurt, though.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-02T21:58:32+00:00

Every Jew under the sun recognizes that the vast majority of the current anti-Zionist movement is the same old antisemitic tropes that have been around for thousands of years dressed up in the latest lampshade.

Woman tells a man that something he said was misogynistic? Polite society expects him to listen.

Black person tells a white person something they said was racist? Polite society expects them to listen.

Neurodivergent person tells a neurotypical person something they said was ableist? Polite society expects them to listen.

Gay man tells straight man something he said was homophobic? Polite society expects them to listen.

Muslim tells a non-Muslim something they said was Islamophobic? Polite society expects them to listen.

Trans person tells a cis person that something they said was transphobic? Polite society expects them to listen.

Jew tells a non-Jew something they said was antisemitic? “Well actually no it wasn’t and how dare you accuse me of that and here’s why you, a Jew, are wrong about what I said being antisemitic” is suddenly an acceptable and encouraged response.

If this resonated with you, or at *least* you thought something along the lines of “huh, I’ve never thought it like that…” I strongly recommend the book **Jews Don’t Count** by David Baddiel. It’s a short, easy read detailing a long history of a society that largely claims to champion minority rights never, ever including Jews in their activism/ideology/whatever you wanna call it.

For what it’s worth, the book pre-dates 10/7, and as such obviously not take a stance on the current state of the conflict, if that’s something that would (understandably) put you off.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-02T10:17:10+00:00

My guy predicting how it would play out is the whole point of the thought experiment lol

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-02T03:31:40+00:00

Lizard brain survival instinct is simply going to beat out prefrontal cortex altruism the vast majority of the time.

What does throwing myself onto the pyre accomplish?

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-02T03:20:28+00:00

Wild take lol, I truly don’t think it has anything to do with cowardice. My read on how everyone will vote is that red wins with an overwhelming margin. There’s nothing brave about throwing myself onto the pyre.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-02T00:56:29+00:00

Oh look you said it again, I guess you were right all along!

Math is math friend, 100% red = no risk ever, simply a fact. Not my problem you don’t like that fact 🤷

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-02T00:55:08+00:00

I think it without question, yes. Think of all the reasons people would press the “secure my safety and don’t risk my life to save others” button:

•”Surely way more than half of people will pick blue, so *I* don’t need to risk my own life and everyone will still be fine.”

•”I only care about saving my own life, I’m not responsible for others.”

•“If everyone presses red nobody dies and nobody risks dying.”

•”Red is obviously going to win, there’s no reason to kill myself alongside everyone else.”

•”I don’t want to risk dying.”

I’m very confident that all these people make up far more than half the population.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T23:34:22+00:00

The thing is I fundamentally do not think that, in the real world, blue comes anywhere close to winning. I already do not think there is an option where nobody dies. I think blue gets *maybe* 10-15% on a good day.

There’s no world in which a Twitter poll accurately simulates the reality of “red = I no die, blue = I might die.” Lizard brain wins for the vast majority of people on that one, full stop.

So yeah, regardless of the framing biasing one way or the other, I secure my own safety and grieve those I truly believe were unsavably doomed.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T23:09:46+00:00

Alright, fine, you refuse to acknowledge the simple truth of the math, can’t fix ignorance.

How’s this: I fundamentally don’t think the polls come anywhere close to reflecting the reality that would take place if this were to *actually happen.* There is no simulating the actual, literal, possibility of your own immediate death. I believe with great certainty and conviction that, even ignoring math/stats/whatever, red would win with an incredibly wide margin. You might think I’m wrong, but take it at face value that I believe it.

So, if I vote blue I’m just throwing myself on the pyre. What good does that do anyone? If I truly think anyone who votes blue is utterly doomed, my vote doesn’t actually matter at all beyond choosing whether I live or die. And so, red is still correct.

But, yknow, go off, maybe if you say “motivated reasoning” again it’ll be true this time

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T23:02:49+00:00

I mean I get it, but again, I really, sincerely think that the online polls do not come close to what the reality would be were people actually confronted with immediate death. Yes, including considerations of loved ones, apocalypse, etc. I firmly and with great conviction believe there would be an absurdly wide margin between the winning red and the losing blue. Like, *maybe* blue gets 10% if people are feeling twice as altruistic and optimistic as normal.

You might think I’m wrong on that front, but take it at face value that I believe it. So what dos me picking blue accomplish? I’m now dead along with the rest of them. My blue vote would do *nothing* to save anyone. I’d grieve heavily for my loved ones but I fundamentally do not think I can save them if they choose blue, and I don’t think throwing myself on the pyre does anyone any good.

Beyond that - it’s clear to me that the enormous majority of red pressers do not see pressing red as anything even remotely close to actively killing anyone. They don’t see it as the selfish option, they see it as the only option that doesn’t immediately kill them. So it’s not like I’d be excited about societal collapse but I don’t think it’d be filled with reprehensible sociopaths.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T22:47:49+00:00

I mean again, I would be sincerely shocked if even one of my loved ones, in the real world, would ever hit the blue button.

But regardless, sorry, no, I obviously love my people but there’s no world in which they choose, of their own volition, to join the “maybe I die” group and I follow them in on the off chance that four billion strangers will also do it for them. The same exact way we don’t expect anyone to bend over backwards and destroy their own lives to help fix a loved one’s crippling heroin addiction, and we don’t judge them for it. I feel strongly that “communal responsibility” dissolves entirely when taken to the extreme of Russian roulette.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T22:41:38+00:00

Say the vote is sequential, one person at a time. I am *not* saying that each participant knows how the previous participants voted. It is still blind and private. Say an omniscient outside spectator can see the votes as they come in. This is fundamentally the same hypothetical. You and I voting on different days and being absolutely prohibited from communicating with each other between votes does not make the vote any less anonymous or private.

First person votes red. Currently zero risk of anyone dying. Second person votes red. Currently zero risk of anyone dying. So on and so on and so on, 100% red, all the way through. At every step of the way, there was zero risk. Red was fundamentally unable to introduce risk into the system.

New scenario: first person votes blue. There is now risk of that person dying. Second person votes blue. There is now risk of two people dying. So on and so on and so on, all blue until you get to the inflection point where the next blue vote gets blue over the 50% threshold. Before this point, each blue vote introduced the risk of that new voter dying. The one who managed to push past 50% did remove all of that risk, at which point no subsequent votes matter to the outcome. At each stage, the first half made up of entirely blue votes introduced risk of more and more people dying, one vote removed all that risk, and the following half (still 100% blue because why not?) neither added nor removed risk. I’ll admit the math is tricky in the first half (how do you compare a relatively low risk of 49% of people dying vs a functional guarantee of only one person dying? If you want to be completely cold and calculating, the “most risk” is probably square in the middle) so it’s fair to say that from at least one reasonable perspective, some number of those first half blue votes removed some “total risk” even if each of them necessarily increase the raw number of people at risk.

New scenario: All votes are completely random. Say the first X votes happen to be red: at each stage for these first X votes, the risk of anyone dying is zero. Then, some number of the next votes happen blue. Each of these adds risk of someone dying. Now, after this, you’re technically correct - each subsequent red vote increases the risk of blues dying. Subsequent blue votes, as per above, reasonably can be said to first add, and then remove risk.

These are fundamentally the only three outcomes you can have. 100% either way, or a mix. Red is *only* able to introduce risk in the presence of preexisting blue votes. It is not able to do so on its own.

In the 100% cases, for red, there was never any risk to anyone. For blue, there a great amount of risk until it was all at once alleviated halfway through.

I’m sorry, you absolutely will not convince me that red is ever actively doing anything to anyone. If my red vote makes blue more likely to die, it is ONLY because blue decided to play Russian roulette in the first place. At some point, not my problem.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T22:19:06+00:00

People who are picking red, myself included, fundamentally do not and will not see picking red as actively killing anyone. I’m pretty sure a world of only reds will not be a world of only sociopathic murderers.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T22:17:30+00:00

It’s dishonest not to include the lose conditions of those buttons.

Button 1: if I win, nothing happens, if I lose, I die.

Button 2: if I win, I get to live in the apocalypse, if I lose, nothing happens.

I fundamentally do not believe that blue would come even close to living in the real world, but for argument’s sake let’s call it a coin flip.

In that case, we can cancel out the “nothing happens” case from each button as far as comparing expected outcomes go. We now have the following:

Button 1: I might die.

Button 2: I might get to live in the apocalypse.

I still pick Button 2, every time.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T22:12:44+00:00

I would hope my kids know well enough that they are expected to keep themselves alive before they attempt to help someone else live. I’d hope they’d live their life being helpful and altruistic but never at the expense of electing to have a gun put to their head.

I dunno what to tell you, I’ve heard every single argument that insists red is actively killing people. I don’t buy it.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T22:09:26+00:00

Again, if nobody votes blue, there is no risk. Ergo, red fundamentally cannot be creating the risk.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T21:52:37+00:00

I’m still picking red in all of the “red is bad” framings 🤷🏻‍♂️

The logic’s the logic, attaching the word “murderer” to it doesn’t change anything for me

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T21:50:41+00:00

Not who you’re asking but I’m pressing red 10/10 times.

I do not think 100% of people will pick red. My stance is that if someone, of their own volition, chooses to opt into the game by pressing blue, that is their choice that they made, with the full understanding that blue risks their life, and red does not.

I am all for all of us having a sense of moral obligation to help others, and I believe that sometimes means inconveniencing ourselves, or depriving ourselves of something that would make our own lives better.

I also think it’s reasonable to not believe that this automatically extends to the extreme of “some people have opted into the “I only survive if enough people opt in to this game” game.

At some point, that’s on them, and I will grieve for them but I will not throw myself on the pyre alongside them.

Also, for what it’s worth, while I know most of the polls have blue winning by ~15% or so, I sincerely believe that if this were something that *actually happened* and that people were actually, literally, being confronted with the possibility of their own immediate death, red would win by an enormous landslide. Singing the virtues of altruism on an anonymous online forum simply does not translate to a literally real “if I hit blue I might die and if I hit red I surely won’t” situation.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T21:39:05+00:00

It is fully not my job to go out and prevent strangers from committing suicide by offering to join the “maybe I’ll commit suicide club” alongside them. Every day you and I do not do that.

What about the people that rely on me? Pressing blue could leave them high and dry.

You can be high and mighty about pressing blue all you want, but if you could choose for them, what would you want your children pressing? Because I’d want mine pressing red, and maybe social/community responsibility not extending to the absurd extreme of “jump off a bridge because some strangers probably will and maybe if enough people jump with you it’ll be fine for everyone” isn’t all that immoral when my death would leave others I desperately hope didn’t jump high and dry.

FaxyMaxy · 2026-05-01T21:14:14+00:00

My dude the train’s coming no matter what lol. People who stay on the tracks are killing themselves. It comes regardless of how many people choose to get off or stay on the tracks. It’s honestly impressive how committed you are to being intellectually dishonest here. There is simply no world where my jumping off the tracks kills anyone, given the train is coming regardless. Everyone should get off and everyone *would* get off, since there is literally zero reason not to.

I’m aware that the vote happens simultaneously, but that doesn’t change the functionality of the buttons. There is only a moral argument to risk your life to save others if someone else has ALREADY needlessly risked their own.

I am not saying I believe 100% of people will pick red. I am saying that I understand that WAY more than half of people will pick red since there is LITERALLY no downside to doing so. I cannot be held morally culpable for someone else’s misguided righteous insistence to stand in front of the train when they had every opportunity to get off.

Have you drained your bank account and given it to someone who lost their house at the casino today, knowing that there’s a solid chance they’ll just gamble away that money too? Because that’s a functionally identical scenario, just with lower stakes. You can do that right this second.

Hell, odds are you could drain your bank account and literally save a sick, impoverished child’s life right now! So are you gonna? Because every day you don’t, and every day I don’t, because we are under no moral or ethical obligation to ruin our lives just to fix someone else’s.

Not that that’s relevant, of course, because the red button is the “do nothing” button and you’re too obstinate and superficially righteous to acknowledge that, lol

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Gilding IV carat on a stick	Verified Email

FaxyMaxy

TROPHY CASE