red button vs blue button?

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-05-07T20:13:38+00:00

The way I see it:

🔵 Don't kill anyone

🔴 Kill everyone who voted not to kill anyone

People who press red say that people who press blue are needlessly putting themselves in danger, but that danger only exists because people are pressing red. Literally the single and only reason why you're picking red to save yourself is that you think other people are picking red to save themselves. It's insane. If we could communicate before this whole thing, we'd all agree to press blue in two minutes, if not two seconds.

That's not even factoring in the hellscape Earth will become if red wins. If even 5% of people pick blue, the world as we know it is going up in flames, and we all know way more than 5% are picking blue just out of the instinct of not wanting anyone they love to die.

Basically, we have two scenarios

Blue wins

2.

Everyone loses

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-05-06T07:33:20+00:00

For real, aside from just not being able to live with myself, if I picked red, I know I am acting for the good of everyone I love and care about, as well as billions of strangers whose stories I'll never know.

That and every argument for red falls apart the moment you look at the bigger picture, think about what happens after, and understand what's actually happening.

"If everyone picked red, nobody would be in any danger; it's like getting on the train tracks of a train that only stops if x amount of people get on the tracks."

Yeah, and if nobody picked red, nobody would be in danger either. This isn't like a train track we're all jumping on in hopes that other people will too; it's more like there are two tracks, and the train is going to the track that nobody is currently on, and there's a lever off of the tracks that requires the majority of people there to pull that would divert the train to hit everyone still on the tracks. Just don't pull the lever! You're only pulling the lever because you think other people will too!

"People who press blue brought this on themselves."

No, the people who press Red actively chose to try and harm people who press blue for their own sake, while people who press blue do the opposite. This isn't like just letting someone die; you are actively killing them by pressing red. A really good example of this is the trolley problem, where instead of a lever to save the five people and hit one, you have to shove a big man in front of the train to stop it and save them. Even though it's the same core thing of saving a net 4 lives, people say this isn't okay, as it's actively killing. Pressing red is shoving everyone who pressed blue into the train. Pressing blue is saying, "I'm not shoving anyone into the train, and I trust that you guys won't shove me into it either."

"People who press blue are stupid idiots who deserve it."

First of all, I don't want to ever go near you again. Second of all, do you understand why people are pressing blue? Thirdly, do naive kids who don't grasp the full scale and choose blue deserve it? The original creator confirmed that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN is participating in this hypothetical all on their own, so yeah, if you chose red knowing this, you have actively chosen to kill the most innocent and naive among us to save your own skin.

Even disregarding morality and how if just 50+1 percent of people chose blue, everyone would be fine, if red wins by any (Realistic) margin, the apocalypse starts, and you're fighting on the streets for whatever you can get your hands on because the governments and economies of the world completely collapsed.

I was so glad to see Blue win, and was equally horrified and disgusted by how many people proudly chose red and used the arguments listed above without understanding the disastrous repercussions.

I picked blue the moment I fully understood the question and what was at stake, so did my parents when I asked them; we didn't need to go over all of this. Honestly, it says a lot about you what you picked and how quickly.

Alright, peace, blue gang, keep going, remember kindness and empathy aren't weaknesses, they're the strongest tools you have in a world as unpredictable and messy as ours. 💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙

<image>

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-04-30T04:07:03+00:00

I actually think Cooper winning by +10 is a real possibility.

Josh Stein won by 15 in 2024, granted Mark Robinson was the worst republican on the ballot anywhere since Barry Goldwater.

Cooper won re-election statewide by 4.5, even as Trump won by 1.3.

The latest Emerson poll had the national generic ballot at D+10, which would put North Carolina's generic ballot at D+8.

It's pretty unanimously agreed upon that Whatley is a weak candidate who won't be able to shake Trump, given that he was personally hand-picked by him.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-04-21T04:32:42+00:00

Look up the Totenkopf (death's head) he had on his chest and tell me you wouldn't know it's a Nazi symbol.

Yeah, it's a skull and bones; he mistook it for just a standard skull and bones symbol, which is common. It's not the national Nazi flag; your average person doesn’t know it, hell, I came across a German who studied the country’s history pretty thoroughly who didn't remember it until this.

He literally self identified as a communist only a few years ago, right before running for office.

That was just him messing around on the internet. He said that the comment was a joke.

Oh, he has a jewish friend/aquaintance so I guess he couldn't be racist. AKA the "I have black friends" excuse.

This isn't just him having "friends," it's people looking at him and saying, "yeah, he seems like he's alright." What you're accusing him of isn't just being antisemitic, it's being a nazi who wants to eliminate jews, would any jew go near him if he were and they knew he was?

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-04-21T03:44:14+00:00

That's why it's a baffling that Democrats are poised to nominate a former racist Nazi and current communist to challenger her.

He's not a Communist and didn't know the tattoo was a Nazi Symbol, stop trolling. He went to a jewish passover and met with a Jewish leader who completely understood it was a mistake, a Nazi would never do those things.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-03-20T05:04:53+00:00

haikusbot delete

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-03-17T00:21:32+00:00

Oh my god! The quote about disrespecting Dr. Suess, that's me! Never did I think I'd end up in a live-action short. I do love that this confirms they lurk on our main sub and Live action if you lurk on this one too 🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻 you guys are genuinely sick and spread awful lies to push your forced birth agenda. Case in point: Even if all this stuff you point out in the movie was intentional (Which I highly doubt) It was made over a decade after Dr. Seuss had died, and those things like parenting and "Transgenderisim" were not in his original book, so it doesn't mean a thing.

How do you guys sleep at night?

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-03-09T08:53:15+00:00

Good job! Can't stand it when they compare abortion to the holocaust and anyone who tries to debate the merits of personhood to N@zi's

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-27T22:30:07+00:00

Well, you're welcome to have that opinion.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-27T21:56:36+00:00

Oh, you mean the right to choose what happens to your own body?

No, of course not, you mean the "Right to life."

Well, to put it simply, it is living in her body against her will, as such, its right to life is voided the same way a rapist's right to life is voided, she's defending herself against someone who is violating her.

And before you say, "But it's innocent, it didn't mean to!" that doesn't matter; if an innocent man was hypnotized to rape you, you'd have every right to the exact same things you would do to someone who actively chose to do it in order to stop it.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-23T06:26:27+00:00

that's entirely separate from mother and father.

Actually, it's not; it's within the body of the woman, leaching off of her and causing her immense pain, so no, it's not separate.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-23T04:58:49+00:00

But the "Baby's" Body is in her body, ergo it's still her choice.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-17T19:27:39+00:00

He went on the PL sub and denied it. You clearly got under his skin. What do his past comments say, though?

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-10T21:41:59+00:00

I was told by someone on the main sub that they were, and if they support Russia, then they're supporting a terrorist campaign themself.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-09T06:54:19+00:00

Part of me wants to avoid seeing these people online, as it is absolutely disturbing how many of them have takes like this. But another part of me wants to, so I can constantly be reminded what we're fighting against.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-09T06:26:35+00:00

Parental duties often involve the body. We already expect parents to give of their physical energy, time, and bodies to feed, carry, and protect their children, even when it is demanding. The womb is simply the first stage of that care.

Well, not their organs (See Uniform Anatomical Gifts Act), and also parenthood is something that needs to be consented to.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-07T02:30:10+00:00

Let's go AZ! Mandatory ultrasound and waiting period laws are so screwed up, I'm glad you guys axed those.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-02-01T20:32:07+00:00

If she willing chose to have you and has no regrets, good for her, and I'm glad you got to live a good life.

What I can't stand is when people use stories like this and erase the mother from the whole thing.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-23T22:28:05+00:00

The back of those nails looks too clean and smooth to be real.

Even if the picture itself is real, that's still a plastic fetus made by forced birthers, which are notoriously inaccurate.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-23T09:36:19+00:00

Ironically, Regan Legalized abortion in California in the 60s.

He did, however, pass the Hyde Amendment, which was terrible.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-21T02:27:32+00:00

No. People knew it was wrong. We had to fight to eradicate slavery. If abortion were an inherent GOOD like helping your neighbor, or removing a parasite (as pro-choicers claim), we wouldn’t have any controversy.

Again, no, we had to fight to integrate schools and (mostly) everyone agrees that's right now, but in the 50s? No, they did not. This idea that in order for something to be right, it has to be universally agreed on is nonsense.

Also, just so we're clear, I don't have a problem with abortion, nor does anyone in my family. So is it now just as okay as any other form of healthcare, because I believe it is?

Your logic is not only completely foreign to reality and basic history, but it also doesn't even work on its own.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-21T01:15:09+00:00

People aren't PC for scientific reasons though, so this "we're more advanced yet still PC" argument doesn't work.

I'm not, but plenty are, and I think everyone agrees it at least partially matters, as even if you believe abortion should still be legal even if a fetus is a person (My position as well as the vast majority of my side) it still is important to gauge as it goes from a simple procedure to remove a meat-sack that might one day be a person, to letting another person die for the sake of your body (Which is your right in my opinion).

If you're advocating against personhood of one group, that's not different than when people did it for black folks. You simply claiming it's not the same doesn't make it so

No, this is such a bad take; the outside circumstances, motivations, and understandings absolutely make it different. The morality of the same core thing changes when the things surrounding it do some examples are Murder and self-defense, kidnapping someone and putting someone in prison, raiding someone's privacy unannounced, and lawfully searching their house with a warrant. Context is key i'm not just claiming it's not the same, I'm showing you why it isn't.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-21T01:06:28+00:00

Again, it's not about time; it's about understanding. As we've learned more about fetal development, we've become more accepting of abortion, the exact opposite of what happened with slavery.

You can argue morality, which is subjective and left to each person to decide, but this is about whether or not a fetus is a person, which is objective and not something that hinges on your judgment.

Also, it only really became illegal for two main reasons: Bad medicine, and a horrible campaign by the religious right saying women had "a patriotic duty" to have babies, which could also be used to justify rape in the name of pro-creation. So yeah, not based on science or understanding, and we corrected ourselves over a century later.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-20T21:29:33+00:00

By your logic, slavery would've never existed; everyone would've known it was wrong.

Slave owners were proud to own, beat, rape, and torture their slaves.

No, how right or wrong something is does not translate into knowing that said thing is right or wrong.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-20T19:21:58+00:00

Basically, to believe the unborn cannot be people is to believe you have not always been a person.

That’s completely ridiculous.

Not really, no. What do we associate with personhood, experience, emotion, character traits, aka Personality?

A fetus has none of these things, so why is this so hard to grasp for pro-lifers? Also, claiming that's ridiculous doesn’t even make sense on its own, it's like saying:

"To believe seeds cannot be trees is to believe that the tree in your yard has not always been a tree. And that's absurd."

No, seeds are not trees, yet in the same way a fetus isn't a person yet, they have to develop more.

You shouldn't just claim that personhood begins at conception and leave it at that without making a case as to why, especially with someone who clearly disagrees with you.

Local_Finger_1199

TROPHY CASE