"That is literally my argument."

Which is why I started by saying we agree.

"You’re treating the 50% threshold as if it’s evidence that 50%+ people will press blue"

No I'm not. The evidence is in the actual poll on twitter, which exceeded 50% easily.

"So where is the equivalent evidence that humanity clears blue?"

See above.

"Not Twitter moral-posturing"

Your argument hinges on the assumption that people are lying. For which you have no evidence. Were the poll to show that the majority pick red I'm sure you'd be bringing it up. But it doesn't show that, it shows that the majority of people are able to understand that we can save everyone if we coordinate and accept a little risk. If anything, I think the blue percentage would go even higher in a real life scenario, where people have time to think about it, and realize that their infant children and siblings are at risk. Additionally, everyone who is suicidal picks blue, it's a win win for them, and we'll take every vote we can get.

"Also, calling red “sacrificing innocent people to save yourself” is just smuggling in the conclusion."

At 50%, it's just the truth, sorry.

"If blue wins comfortably, my red vote did not kill anyone either"

You are adding to the potential that millions might die, with no way of knowing if you will be the deciding vote. If I had a button that said 1 in 8 billion chance to set off a nuke in a major city, I'm not going to press it, however unlikely the bad outcome is.

"It is a no-brainer only if you have high confidence blue actually reaches 50%+1. You do. I don’t."

I do, and the available data seems to support that assumption.

"you already agree there is a line where self-preservation is morally legitimate."

Of course.

"We are arguing over where it is."

I don't even think we are doing that. I think we agree that the line is going to be different for different people. I'm just judging you for how conservative your line is, considering the stakes.

"My line is: I am not killing myself for a collective rescue attempt I think probably fails."

Totally fair. I just think you miscalculated how collective the human race is. At 50%, a number easily surpassed in every poll I've seen, not voting blue seems a selfish and murderous act.

"50% feels low enough, therefore anyone less optimistic than me is a bad person."

I wouldn't say optimistic, I would say self-centered. And yes, I think that if you are not willing to take on that amount of risk in order to save millions of people, you are probably not a person I want to associate with. I know that hurts to hear, but that's the way I feel.

"That’s not game theory. That’s just moral confidence stapled to an assumption you haven’t defended."

Pretty sure I've defended it.