4 ms·

Your entire logical chain, and your self importance, well, it explains why I'm always picking red. If you win and most pick blue, I'm safe, otherwise, I'm also

Your entire logical chain, and your self importance, well, it explains why I'm always picking red. If you win and most pick blue, I'm safe, otherwise, I'm also safe. You get to feel intellectually superior choosing the only option that can lead you to die. The simple answer is everyone should pick red.

DetroitThrow 5mo ago
>The simple answer is everyone should pick red. The simplest answer is that everyone should pick blue, actually. This is because choosing blue results in no consequences, but choosing red does result in consequences. Why not choose the simple option? It's literally the "no consequences" button. Seems like these reds are overcomplicating a simple question.
- troglodytetrain 5mo ago
  Please explain. Red guarantees safety. Why wouldn't everyone pick red? The only option that leads to a statistical chance of death is blue?
  - troglodytetrain 5mo ago
    I think this hypothetical captures a sort of hero complex. You think everyone is too stupid to choose the right choice so you will save us all... Except we all chose red because its the obvious choice and now you are dead.
  - gpm 5mo ago
    The only option that leads to a statistical chance of murder though is red.
    - NekkoDroid 5mo ago
      Different framing: The only option that leads to a statistical chance of suicide though is blue.
      - gpm 5mo ago
        Being murdered is not suicide.
        NekkoDroid 5mo ago
        And where in the original post is specified who does "the murdering"? As far as I see blue pressers are explicitly putting themselves in harms way and red pressers have fuck all to do with it. Just because someone jumped infront of the train and died doesn't mean the conductor is a murderer.
        gpm 5mo ago
        The red pressers commit murder. If people don't press red, the blue pressers don't die. Train conductors and companies take reasonable precautions to avoid killing people - they aren't indifferent to it. If they just built tracks and started running trains on them without taking measures to avoid mowing people down they absolutely would be guilty of murder.
        NekkoDroid 5mo ago
        > The red pressers commit murder. For it to be murder it would need to be unlawful (lets just assume this entire hypothetical is unlawful) and planned, so unless red pressers are specifically doing it to kill blue pressers it is factually not murder. Blue pressers have put themselves into the situation of possibly dying, which was entirely their choice and isn't the responsibility of anybody else (ignoring the "forced to press a button by some mystical force/being"). There is a reason why even "duty to rescue" laws usually do not require the rescuer to endanger themselves doing it, which in this case would most certainly be the case (going from 0% of death to "who knows, this is entirely out of my control but non-negligable chance of dying" % of death). > If they just built tracks and started running trains on them without taking measures to avoid mowing people down they absolutely would be guilty of murder. Most stations in the world do not have any guardrails to the tracks themselves. If someone decides to walk onto them as the early end of a station they will most likely die if the train is arriving. The tracks were there, the train was scheduled just the person decided to put themselves into harms way. At most it would be considered manslaughter.
  - blargey 5mo ago
    The framing leads many people to pick blue for its altruistic framing. Enough, in fact, that 50% quorum is honestly not difficult. A lot of red-advocates seem to have a False Consensus Effect going where they're convinced way more people than in reality will interpret this "dilemma" as "do you step in the human grinder in hopes of jamming it", and act accordingly. A 70% or 90% requirement, or just explicitly framing it as "do you step into the human grinder" would make it vastly easier to aim for 100% red, but we're dealing with the literal words of the "everyone lives button" here.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

DetroitThrow 5mo ago

>The simple answer is everyone should pick red. The simplest answer is that everyone should pick blue, actually. This is because choosing blue results in no consequences, but choosing red does result in consequences. Why not choose the simple option? It's literally the "no consequences" button. Seems like these reds are overcomplicating a simple question.

troglodytetrain 5mo ago
Please explain. Red guarantees safety. Why wouldn't everyone pick red? The only option that leads to a statistical chance of death is blue?
- troglodytetrain 5mo ago
  I think this hypothetical captures a sort of hero complex. You think everyone is too stupid to choose the right choice so you will save us all... Except we all chose red because its the obvious choice and now you are dead.
- gpm 5mo ago
  The only option that leads to a statistical chance of murder though is red.
  - NekkoDroid 5mo ago
    Different framing: The only option that leads to a statistical chance of suicide though is blue.
    - gpm 5mo ago
      Being murdered is not suicide.
      - NekkoDroid 5mo ago
        And where in the original post is specified who does "the murdering"? As far as I see blue pressers are explicitly putting themselves in harms way and red pressers have fuck all to do with it. Just because someone jumped infront of the train and died doesn't mean the conductor is a murderer.
        gpm 5mo ago
        The red pressers commit murder. If people don't press red, the blue pressers don't die. Train conductors and companies take reasonable precautions to avoid killing people - they aren't indifferent to it. If they just built tracks and started running trains on them without taking measures to avoid mowing people down they absolutely would be guilty of murder.
        NekkoDroid 5mo ago
        > The red pressers commit murder. For it to be murder it would need to be unlawful (lets just assume this entire hypothetical is unlawful) and planned, so unless red pressers are specifically doing it to kill blue pressers it is factually not murder. Blue pressers have put themselves into the situation of possibly dying, which was entirely their choice and isn't the responsibility of anybody else (ignoring the "forced to press a button by some mystical force/being"). There is a reason why even "duty to rescue" laws usually do not require the rescuer to endanger themselves doing it, which in this case would most certainly be the case (going from 0% of death to "who knows, this is entirely out of my control but non-negligable chance of dying" % of death). > If they just built tracks and started running trains on them without taking measures to avoid mowing people down they absolutely would be guilty of murder. Most stations in the world do not have any guardrails to the tracks themselves. If someone decides to walk onto them as the early end of a station they will most likely die if the train is arriving. The tracks were there, the train was scheduled just the person decided to put themselves into harms way. At most it would be considered manslaughter.
- blargey 5mo ago
  The framing leads many people to pick blue for its altruistic framing. Enough, in fact, that 50% quorum is honestly not difficult. A lot of red-advocates seem to have a False Consensus Effect going where they're convinced way more people than in reality will interpret this "dilemma" as "do you step in the human grinder in hopes of jamming it", and act accordingly. A 70% or 90% requirement, or just explicitly framing it as "do you step into the human grinder" would make it vastly easier to aim for 100% red, but we're dealing with the literal words of the "everyone lives button" here.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]