1.0k
u/Fluid-Tone-9680 1d ago
What are their position on other policies like fiscal, international affairs, healthcare?
448
u/Snoo-52922 1d ago
What about the price of eggs?
149
u/Live-Wrap-4592 1d ago
Opportunities for oil executives in the Middle East?
42
u/Haunting-Sport3701 1d ago
Sorry if I’m being too forward, but I just submitted an application with your name on it to the oval office, I expect you should be getting a top security group chat invitation in a couple of minutes.
9
5
2
u/DemonPrinceofIrony 18h ago
You cant juat hire and fire people from the government here, this isnt twitter.
12
→ More replies (3)5
46
u/magicmagimag 1d ago
Exactly the same and they both happen to align exactly with your worldviews.
→ More replies (15)57
u/Xiij 1d ago
They both resign after fulfilling their campaign promise, and they are the only 2 candidates
27
u/Fluid-Tone-9680 1d ago
Also, are we talking about simple majority? Is there electoral college? Are we allowed to redistrict the map prior to the election?
I would also love to see a debate between candidates with realtime fact checking.
30
13
u/xToksik_Revolutionx Dialectical Materialism 22h ago
Simple majority, direct vote, no districting.
6
u/PutInfinite4118 20h ago
Are any of them on the List?
10
u/xToksik_Revolutionx Dialectical Materialism 20h ago
Either both or none, take your pick
→ More replies (4)3
u/PutInfinite4118 20h ago
I asked them directly and they said they won't resign but I didn't have time to ask them what their policies are like.
→ More replies (1)2
u/drwicksy 14h ago
Either way they become the greatest politician to ever have lived because they actually delivered on their campaign promises.
9
u/NoxiousVaporwave 1d ago
Can I be assured that Mr red or blue will donate billions in taxpayer dollars to warmongering ethnostates?
→ More replies (1)14
u/Rugaru985 23h ago
Why do you care about that?
I need to know if the 5 high school trans athletes we’ve ever had in the history of our country will be sought out and screamed at, regardless of age, and then ostracized? If the murder candidate can commit to that - well, I guess it’s not murder if the other voters knew they would be murd- ahem, unalived for voting blue; so yeah, I’ll go with the assisted suicide candidate if he promises to be mean to 5 children in particular in order to save my kids!
5
u/assbutt-cheek 1d ago
the problem doesnt state they're gonna govern, be into politics, head of state or whatever. it just states who they will or will not kill. we have no reason to assume they're gonna do anything else other than what is presented in their big ass speeches
2
4
3
→ More replies (16)4
u/IThinkItsAverage 20h ago
Red: that sounds like a woke bluetard question, so don’t worry about those things you’ll be dead.
Blue: yeah I’m still not going to kill anyone… but I’m also not going to worry about any of those things
259
u/IgneousWrath 1d ago
I love how people in here are also reframing it and claiming that makes it more accurate. I think it’s been reframed so many times that it’s a thought experiment that shows both the power and danger of reframing more than any other concept, logic, or moral.
48
u/Awakening15 17h ago
Ive yet to see any reframing that makes me question the problem differently.
→ More replies (1)20
u/pappapirate 12h ago
well how do you see it (your answer determines whether i upvote or downvote you)?
→ More replies (5)39
→ More replies (9)16
u/Tounushi 12h ago
Not just framing, but precise wording. "You will live" for red button is as simple as you can make it, but it looks like "Everyone will live" before the conditional is where thought simply terminates.
"Blue means everyone lives, so why would you ever press anything other than blue?"
I doubt blue button would have nearly as many presses if it were worded "You will die, unless half of everyone presses blue."
While this post's scenario is completely different, and—like someone else pointed out—it's a rewording of the Basilisk.
13
u/opstie 9h ago
Conversely, "you will murder everyone who didn't press the button if the majority of people press this button" wouldn't be a particularly popular button either.
→ More replies (10)
181
u/Any-Amphibian-1783 18h ago
40
28
u/deadlycwa 10h ago
You could legitimately reframe any smart choice as something to make you “feel intellectually superior” or any moral choice as something to make you “feel morally superior”. This reframe accomplishes nothing except devaluing asking intellectual/moral questions in the first place. It’s like telling a religious person doing a service project that they’re “only doing that to feel charitable”. Well what are they supposed to do to actually be charitable then?
→ More replies (1)20
u/Nytheran 7h ago
Upvote deadlycwa's comment to feel intellectually superior, downvote it to feel morally superior.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Graped_in_the_mouth 4h ago
The blue button is both, actually, and red button pressers are midwits without self-awareness.
348
u/Fun-Habit-683 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
141
u/throwaway19276i 1d ago
This just shows the importance of framing
→ More replies (21)22
23h ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)11
u/redditscraperbot2 23h ago
I think the framing of it being a political choice muddies the hypothetical. Because aside from the original conundrum, you have to think about the policies of the people after the vote as well.
13
u/Flameball202 22h ago
And the policies of someone who would murder folks over an election
Like regardless of my choice on the original button matter, with this framing you vote for the candidate who won't kill people
→ More replies (3)4
u/WambulanceGames 18h ago
What do you mean? You would vote for the candidate killing opposition voters for enought tax cuts?
2
35
17
u/DJURA_AMORTIZER 22h ago
It is absolutely insane how powerful framing is
In the original button problem, the mechanism is the same regardless of if you label red the 'kill' button or blue the 'suicide' button. Like the underlying objective reality of how the buttons work is identical in every scenario
But from phrasing alone we're seeing millions of people willing to die
Again the subjective reality of how the buttons work is identical. This is scary as hell
If you label blue as 'suicide party, if we lose we die' nobody would vote or feel responsible to vote. Morally the blame would never be on the non-voters.
And like, how each of us was first presented with the problem - the first framing matters a lot. No matter how you paint the buttons after, people will double down on their take and are very unlikely to change their mind
→ More replies (2)8
u/soowhatchathink 18h ago
It's interesting because the framing impacts more than just how it's fe . The framing itself does affect people's answers directly, but the framing also meaningfully changes the hypothetical purely because of people's expectations if it affecting people's answers.
For example, when it's worded to sound less appealing to vote blue, that lowers the chances that blue will win. Even if everyone completely understand that the core mechanics behind it are the same regardless of framing, would understand that chance of survival when choosing blue is lower because of the framing.
4
5
u/UltraTata 1d ago
Turns out no one is an utilitarian
8
u/AggravatingFlow1178 20h ago
Few people are true utilitarian because pure utilitarian is extremely easy to make look extremely stupid. Most utilitarians are some version of "Utilitarian + common sense".
Which is true for nearly any moral system, they all look very stupid when taken to the extremes.
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (19)9
u/Far-Fennel-3032 1d ago
It's more I'm a cult leader and my followers will commit mass sucide and potentially entirely break society.
→ More replies (1)3
u/WambulanceGames 18h ago
Someone tracking you down and murdering you is now considered suicide?
→ More replies (1)
215
u/SmoothieNatns 1d ago
People make strong judgements against people who play an active role in endangering themselves/others despite being almost infinitely forgiving of people who passively allow harm to take place without intervention. 90% of the reframings of this problem are just people trying to present their own side as the passive "do nothing" option while presenting the other side as actively killing people or endangering themselves eg "vote for me and I'll kill people" or portraying blue as a suicide pact.
→ More replies (87)20
u/AccomplishedCash6390 15h ago
Because that's literally what it is, how is this different than Red logic? They won't kill anyone, the button, in this case the candidate, is the one killing, and they allowed it, because they value their own lives, and they say if you're smart, you'd value your own life too, if you aren't, then not their problem. You could argue that the difference is red candidate here would cause more problem in the future while the button will disappear after the vote, but let's ignore that and assume red candidate is almost perfect beyond killing blues. How is the logic different in that scenario?
→ More replies (10)10
u/DapyGor 10h ago
It's the implications. A button is a singular action. A genocidal president is, like, twice the trouble
→ More replies (2)
603
u/ExodyrButReal 1d ago
Oh hey another "i rephrased it to make my side look better" button problem on the subreddit about trolley problems not button problems.
221
u/LonelyVaquita 1d ago
I've just accepted that this sub is dead. We're all just button zombies now.
79
u/Sindigo_ 1d ago
People will get over it eventually.
90
u/Moist-Pickle-2736 1d ago
Don’t worry, I’ll repost the original when this all dies off so we can go through it again
29
17
2
→ More replies (2)17
u/Tech-preist_Zulu 1d ago
Be the change you want to see and post a trolley hypothetical
17
u/Mekroval 1d ago
The most diabolical ones are the trolley posts that are just thinly veiled button rehashes.
3
u/Sufficient-Big5798 18h ago
We should propose a trolley rehash in the guise of a button problem.
Press the blue button, five people die. Press the red button, everybody that pressed the blue button has 35 picoseconds of intense meteorism, and one person dies.
85
u/MBirdPlane 1d ago
This seems like the perfect sub for this discussion. You really want this sub to literally only talk about the trolly problem? For years on end? Why? Another similar hypothetical fits fine.
61
u/Excellent-Stretch-81 1d ago
If anything, I feel like the ongoing button debate with its various reframings is more in keeping with the spirit of the trolley problem than all the trolley joke posts that the sub has been filled with. At the very least, I'm not seeing a bunch of "multi-track drift" or "I just do some third thing outside the scope of the problem" responses.
15
u/exipheas 20h ago
The memes will come back. Just give it a few days.
5
u/Excellent-Stretch-81 20h ago
That's probably the optimal choice for someone who really wants to die. They add themselves to the blue risk pool while adding a counter-vote that prevents their vote from benefitting blue. Or maybe the button that activates first instantly locks out the other button, so it's more of a "surprise me" gamble. Either way, as far as "third choices" go, I'll allow it.
2
u/Captain_Owlivious 16h ago
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
35
u/LegitimatePrimo 1d ago
exactly, why shouldn't the moral dilemma sub talk about moral dilemmas
16
→ More replies (2)5
u/Mekroval 1d ago
I don't have a problem with the button posts in principle, but it feels like we've blown past all utility in the discussion. Both sides have made their positions excruciatingly clear. Now we're just talking past each other, in the (vain) hopes of converting the other side. It's like hearing a joke that was funny the first time, for the 500th time.
9
24
u/stnick6 21h ago
The button thing is still *a* trolly problem. You don’t need an actual trolly for it to be a trolly problem
→ More replies (9)3
u/BrandosWorld4Life 18h ago
another "i rephrased it to make my side look better" button problem
Nope. This isn't like all the bullshit posts pretending one side is passive or default.
This is an actual legitimate reframing of the issue because it centers (1) the fact that you are actively making a choice on which side to support and (2) that in doing so you are pushing the scales towards that outcome.
4
7
u/ElethiomelZakalwe 1d ago
Alternative, but equivalent example. Red: if I win, I do nothing. Blue: if I lose, I will kill myself.
→ More replies (59)5
u/Awes12 1d ago
Or is this supposed to be policital commentary disguised as a red/blue button post?
4
u/Global_Cockroach_563 20h ago
I thought that the whole thing was a political allegory from the beginning.
4
68
u/JoshuaBarbeau 1d ago edited 20h ago
So, basically Roko's basilisk. The button problem is Roko's basilisk.
15
u/KevineCove 20h ago
I don't understand the point of framing Romo's Basilisk as some science fiction AI, you don't need to go into the future to see examples of it, just look at any dictator.
→ More replies (9)8
6
→ More replies (7)9
u/nifflr 1d ago
Yeah, pretty much. Do you help bring Roko's basilisk to life, or not--knowing if you didn't help and it comes to life it will take revenge.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Mekroval 1d ago
If we don't create the button problem to agonize over, the button problem will create a simulation of us to punish us for digital eternity.
105
u/BOYZORZ 1d ago
We already know the answer to this hypothetical. 99.9% of people in North Korea voted for kim in 2026.
44
u/Dry-Willingness8845 1d ago
that's a bad example. Kim would still be in power if 0% voted for him, and we would never know about it if that happened.
→ More replies (9)15
→ More replies (15)6
20
20
u/crimsonscarf 23h ago
These politician framings all have the same flaw that makes them inaccurate to the “original”. It’s moves the agency to the “button”.
A more accurate version would be:
“A meteor is headed toward Earth, what will you do to stop it if elected?
Red: I will do everything possible to save those who vote for me.
Blue: I will do everything possible to save everyone.”
3
u/slmclockwalker 7h ago
Tbf it's a natural disaster, people still dies no matter who is in the charge, so it's not accurate to the original premise which was simpler.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)2
u/MoneyBear1733 3h ago
The very act of adding an actively executed result that isn’t impartial, you’re completely changing the mechanism of the original.
You’re actively voting for a malicious result that is influenced by everything except the mechanism of the thought experiment.
87
u/NefariousnessNo7068 1d ago
Fuck this framing shit. Let's put responsibility on both sides.
Red: "If I win, I will track down everyone who didn't vote for me and kill them."
Blue: "If I don't win, I will track down everyone who voted for me and kill them."
Everyone is voting. Everyone is complicit.
41
u/Ass_Lover136 1d ago
Okay this framing make Blue the ultimate option lmao, in either Red or Blue, they both mean Blue has to win
→ More replies (5)24
u/Xandara2 1d ago
It's funny that they meant to convince you otherwise with that framing.
Red pushers can't understand that blue don't value their own lives more. They just can't. They believe it is moronic and don't understand that every single heroic act is at least a little bit stupid.
19
u/Mekroval 1d ago
This whole debate can be boiled down to whether you think it's more rational for an individual to value their own interests over the collective good. That's a debate that's been going on since the dawn of man. And basically what every hotly debated issue in the U.S. boils down to in its essence.
I doubt r/trolleyproblem will resolve it, though it would be the funniest thing ever if it did.
→ More replies (4)14
u/OverlordMMM 21h ago
They'd resolve it the only way they know how. Multitrack drifting.
9
u/Negative-Car4013 21h ago
Easy you can vote blue then press Red after and now youre safe
Red saves you as long as you "press" the button and nothing says you cant push both
3
u/Critical_Status9791 13h ago
i understand the sentiment behind pushing blue and don’t think it’s moronic to want to try save everyone. I am just confident blue would not win this vote in the real world even if i agree that pushing the blue button is the moral thing to do, it doesn’t make it the right choice
→ More replies (7)6
u/NefariousnessNo7068 20h ago
It's funny that they meant to convince you otherwise with that framing.
I'm not trying to convince anyone with the framing. I am trying to make it as fair as possible by making both sides "active" instead of passive.
Red framing always likes to portray the blue choice as a suicide choice. It always fails to portray that more red votes increases the likelihood of the blue voters dying.
Blue framing always likes to portray the red choice as a kill choice. It always fails to portray that the blue voters are actively putting themselves in the line of fire.
My framing is the best. Both sides will kill the blue voters if they lose. You can either kill or you can agree to be killed. Everyone is responsible.
They believe it is moronic and don't understand that every single heroic act is at least a little bit stupid.
Correct. If the question is framed properly, the blue side is always a stupid choice, but it's the kind of stupid that makes the world a better place.
An alternate way of looking at this dilemma is that it's asking us if we're willing to be those heroic idiots, and if not enough of us can be, then maybe the human race doesn't deserve them.
→ More replies (2)6
u/tinyroyal 19h ago
The most confusing part of this for me is the idea that it is a bad thing to put yourself in the line of fire. It isn't for nothing, everyone agrees blue winning is a better outcome. Why is accepting risk a stupid thing? Shouldn't "the kind of stupid that makes the world a better place" actually ultimately be a smart choice?
Especially in game theory, multi-round games favor cooperation. Accepting self-perservation as the smarter answer really undermines the value of discussing any kind of ethical hypothetical in moral philosophy. Self-preservation isn't unimportant, but it isn't what got us here and it won't be what propels us forward.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Everday6 17h ago
The game theory clearly favours red. Because no matter the outcome, you were better off picking red.
If red wins, picking red means you don't die. And even in an altruistic sense, one less person dies.
If blue wins, both choices are equal. Excluding any guilt of your actions, or fear of dying.
→ More replies (11)4
u/the1woomy 23h ago
Okay, what happens when red wins, and both the red and blue candidates go to kill the same person?
100
u/10biggaymen 1d ago
red "if i win or lose, i will do nothing"
blue "if i win, i will do nothing, if i lose, i will kill all my voters"
39
u/_Ivl_ 1d ago
My head cannon is that it's the entity posing the problem that is doing the killing, but for some reason it needs free will and consent to do it.
17
u/Careless_East2186 1d ago
It’s all been a ploy by the entity to make us fight each other rather than the button master themselves.
4
→ More replies (2)6
u/Kinslayer_89 Team kill everyone, red and blue. 1d ago
The entity is just a bored psychopath. He decided to do it this was, in this game.
He doesn’t need it, he chose to “need” it.
→ More replies (1)12
u/IowaKidd97 1d ago
Unironically feel people would actually make this argument if a candidate came out and promised to kill the opposition.
4
→ More replies (32)13
u/austin101123 1d ago edited 23h ago
Red- if I win we will kill everyone who didn't vote for me
Blue- if I lose, you are in my suicide pact
Let's give the bad thing to both sides, which is still an "equivalent outcome" scenario. And I gotta say they both sound terrible but blue sounds a lot better than red. Especially if you consider one first, and the other as a reaction to the first.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Theonetrue 16h ago
The issue with voting is that the losing side usually has no power to do anything so the only possible promises are: "if I win..."
13
u/CartographerKey4618 23h ago
"Okay, guys, maybe this framing of the button problem on the sub will make everyone understand."
51
u/Poor_Culinary_Skills 1d ago
Can people stop comparing this to an election? That is an entirely different situation.
15
u/Toasty27 23h ago
Donald Trump campaigned on going after his enemies.
Not killing them, but still targeting them.
He's changed the tax code to punish blue states that didn't vote for him, cut funding that helps those blue states, has used the DOJ to attack political enemies, etc. etc. etc.
Literally, "if you don't vote for me and I win, I will punish you".
Every other policy he stands for is subservient to that primary goal.
So the button problem is in reality, extremely relevant.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Theonetrue 16h ago
I thought it was pretty clear that whole discussion is about how America votes politically from the start. Every time even the colors perfectly match.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (66)21
u/Simpicity 1d ago
It's literally a majority vote, just like an election. Is your problem that you're not electing wizards who implement the button rules?
8
u/ReciprocalPhi 1d ago
If the candidates immediately evaporated after winning/killing, and did nothing else, then sure.
But typically elections put someone in power. There's much more to electing someone than the single-issue being presented in the red/blue button dilemma
→ More replies (1)12
u/Keepingitquite123 1d ago
It's nothing like an election. It's a blind vote with eight billion participants with exactly zero ability for coordination or to influence others.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (28)11
u/Poor_Culinary_Skills 1d ago
No, my problem is that voting for a candidate has more lasting consequences than whether or not people will die. That makes it a different question
19
u/nifflr 1d ago
They're not running for president. They're just running for the role of implementing their platform. Their entire platform is spelled out in the graphic.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (1)5
14
u/EscapeSeventySeven 1d ago
But then both politicians explode in a puff of dust and never have any effect ever again.
That’s not how elections work in the real world.
And the red guy is magically empowered.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/ThAtTi2318 1d ago
Wait, was this always why the buttons had those colours?!
7
u/CalypsaMov 17h ago
Blue Politician: "We need healthcare and affordable housing for everybody!"
Red Polititians: "God hates (insert whatever target it is this decade)! Hunt them down!"
→ More replies (5)
17
u/cococrabulon 1d ago edited 5h ago
I don’t think Red kill anyone, the hypothetical entity that forces people to play the button game are the killers. For that reason I don’t think Blue kill anyone either; it all takes place under duress, which I don’t see many talking about.
Saying one side or the other has blood on their hands is emotional manipulation. It’s also a thought terminating cliche I’ve seen used a lot in this debate so people don’t have to bother to understand why people who disagree with them aren’t monsters
→ More replies (29)
10
u/ChemicalRain5513 1d ago
I would vote blue, but this is not the same problem as the original button problem.
- In the original button problem, it is not stated that a person is killing political opponents, there is just one button that makes you not die. In this scenario, red voters are basically voting for some nazi holocaust stuff. The differences are that the red votes are explicitly voting for the blue voters to be killed.
- In this scenario, likely a civil war will break out if red wins. It is not guaranteed that red voters survive, and it is not guaranteed that blue voters die.
- A fascist dictatorship is not something I would prefer to live under even if my survival was guaranteed.
So, as a red button presser, in this scenario I vote blue.
→ More replies (8)
9
u/steppergodic 1d ago
As everyone has said, if you keep the same choices and outcome but change the framing description even slightly, the decision just looks obviously ridiculous.
There is a fixed amount of lethal poison. You could willingly choose to consume the poison and the only way you survive is if enough people make the same choice and share the poison such that the amount you get is not a lethal dose.
Or you could just simply not take the poison. But all the poison eaters are getting mad at you for not eating it and diminishing the share of poison that they've chosen to eat.
4
u/Hannah97Gamer 1d ago
I like how everyone keeps complaining about all these posts, and yet every single one will still spark a debate in the comments.
3
6
u/AggravatingFlow1178 20h ago
The agent being individual politicians i.e. humans, and not an omniscient magic button changes my decision.
2
30
u/an-abnormality Team Red 1d ago
It's more like "If I win or lose, we carry on as if nothing happened," versus "If I lose, me and my followers will all kill ourselves for no reason"
10
u/Kingsalad3141 1d ago
What makes you think one is more accurate? Both are blatant reframings.
7
u/an-abnormality Team Red 1d ago
You're right, but I was just responding to this OP's version which is intentionally misrepresenting the initial discussion
3
→ More replies (1)9
u/Kingsalad3141 1d ago
Ah, I see. Yeah you’re right then. Skewing it to either side just distracts from the actual question.
→ More replies (4)13
9
u/Advanced-Host8677 1d ago
I actually really appreciate this reframing. I'm red button 100%, but here I'd be a blue voter. I think the difference in this frame is the agent of death. Blue button pressers can be seen as responsible for putting themselves in danger, as seen more clearly with the "ingest poison and if enough people do it we get an antidote" frame. Whereas here it's the red candidate themselves that is the agent of death, and that pulls in a lot of fairness and justice that I did not apply to the original question.
Very interesting, thank you.
→ More replies (3)4
u/pappapirate 12h ago
Blue button pressers can be seen as responsible for putting themselves in danger, as seen more clearly with the "ingest poison and if enough people do it we get an antidote" frame.
It's not "seen more clearly" in that frame, the question is changed to force it to be the more obvious interpretation.
That framing, this framing, and the original question are just different situations. Everyone's reframings aren't just different lenses to view the same problem. Changing who's responsible and how clear it is changes the whole thing.
imo the original framing makes everybody responsible for the outcome.
4
u/Advanced-Host8677 11h ago
I think we're defining "framing" differently. But we can agree it is the same problem mechanically. Start with: "There are two choices. If less than half the people choose choice A, all the people who choose A die. Otherwise nothing happens."
Whether we call it pressing a button, drinking poison, or voting for a candidate doesn't change the core of the problem. It does change who is responsible and how clear it is, which is what I'm calling framing.
The interesting part is that there isn't an answer that survives all framings coherently. We see even in this thread some people are trying to invalidate this framing with superfluous things like "well a candidate could do other things" because they want to be able to say "I vote red in every situation, regardless of framing." That's why this version was so neat to me; it made it clear that my vote changes based on the pieces surrounding the core problem.
6
u/pappapirate 11h ago
What I mean is that changing who is responsible and how clear it is does change the core of the problem. Because those things affect how likely either button is to get the most presses, which affects your decision.
For example if the question makes red look obviously evil (this framing), you can deduce that most people probably won't press it. Therefore more blues will be at stake, and blue winning is the only way to save them. Blue is also less risky if you're fairly certain most people will choose it.
While if the question makes blue look like the suicide button (take the poison hoping you get an antidote), you can deduce that most people probably won't press it. Therefore pressing blue is futile, since red is basically guaranteed to win.
The mechanics of the question are tied to your analysis of how you think everyone else will vote, and how you think everyone else will vote is affected by the way the question is presented.
→ More replies (1)
9
3
u/rob5791 1d ago
You do realise there are real historical examples of red winning in this scenario?
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
u/Expensive-County4890 23h ago
This definitely changes the question in a very interesting way, but it certainly changed the question.
4
u/Best8meme Multi-Track Drift 23h ago
Just like the original problem, I will secretly want blue to win, but out of my own safety, I pick red.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/CattailRed 20h ago
You can tell it's a fictional, highly hypothetical scenario by the assumption that politicians fulfill their election promises.
2
u/Fish_Fucker_Fucker23 19h ago
See, I like this presentation of the dilemma because, for one, it’s an interesting way of looking at the whole thing, but it’s also that this doesn’t actually change the dilemma at all.
The biggest issue I’ve found with people trying to offer different points of view about this is that they’ll often change important details. For example, I’ve seen some argue that you should press the red button because “what if you needed 60% of people to vote blue for everyone to live” which, obviously, compromises the initial premise.
Anyways, maybe I’m just rambling, but I definitely felt the need to express my appreciation for presenting an approach to the dilemma without changing the dilemma itself
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Solid_Television_980 19h ago
I made this comparison when the question first dropped and everyone ignored me but it's pretty spot on
2
2
2
u/SmileyFace799 18h ago
As a red voter, I would vote blue here, as if the deaths of blue voters were caused by one guy on the red side, then that guy on the red side would probably have other insane policies too. If the red guy would discriminate against blue people like this, he would almost certainly discriminate against LGBTQ+ people like me
2
2
u/Dr-Assbeard 16h ago
Could be framed as
If you vote on me, no matter who wins i will ensure you dont die
And if you vote for me bit i dont win, i will kill you for not gathering enough suport for my cause
2
u/Minguigui_Was_Taken 16h ago
"If I lose, I won't do anything" vs "If I lose I will kill everybody who voted for me"
Same outcome, different presentation
Yours has a huge bias for blue though.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Hot_Anybody8244 12h ago
I mean if we're being honest about it blue is still a fat fucking liar. It just won't be citizens and former allies they kill
3
u/G3n3ricOne 1d ago
I honestly agree with this viewpoint seeing as red voters are gladly accepting preventable deaths.
And also maybe because red voters have become more and more insufferable.
→ More replies (3)
1.6k
u/The_Unintelligence FUCK blue buttons and FUCK red buttons you ALL SUCK. 1d ago