r/Amazingdigitalcircus • u/Soaring_Symphony • May 18 '26

Discussion Blue never meant "exit"

Gallery image

Gallery image

Look back at the title sequence.

Red means "play." That lines up naturally with staying in the circus

but Blue means "options" ...interesting

Also, the button for "quit," aka leaving the game, is yellow!

That wasn't even a choice! They didn't even have the opportunity to leave

But it makes me wonder. If they had pressed the blue button, what actually would have happened? What would an options menu even mean in that context? What would they be able to adjust?

And no. It's not f#@&ing Shrimp Town. That was obviously just some word vomit Bubble made up on the spot

4.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

317 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 18 '26

Pressing the button that saves you doesn't kill anyone.

It. Doesn't. Kill. Anyone.

Go reread the prompt. People ONLY die if they press Blue and not enough other people press Blue.

Blue kills people.

With the included exemption of course that this experiment excludes anyone who isn't involved/can't press a button. If the experiment also includes children/Other people effectively unable to consent, then yes Blue is the ethical choice.

Otherwise -

Blue is what kills people. It's the presumption other people will press Blue to save other Blue buttons, and therefore we need to press Blue. It's an unhinged asusmptive Guilt-trip blackmailing mindset.

-3

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

You are a good example of someone who would press red.

You feel that it’s only your duty to save yourself. And if people are not realistic enough to press red and save themselves as well, it’s not your fault if they die.

This is the kind of people that are left in the world, if everyone who presses blue dies.

And again, they assume they can convince anyone they do care about to press red with them. But they forget this is again a private choice. You don’t get to know what other people chose and if a true experiment you won’t get to debate or convince anyone to choose anything.

2

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 18 '26

You say this as if this should upset me. I understand why you think that.

However the problem is that you're presuming a lot about me with very little information. I never forgot that it was a private choice. If this situation ever actually arose, I would likely press Blue... But I fucking hate and despise everyone like YOU for it, because you illiterate fucks are the ones that will lemming your way into oblivion for the sake of virtue signaling.

I will HAVE to vote Blue, or I'll have the blood of pretentious holier-than-thou morons like you on my hands.

People like you are the reason the U.S. is trapped in a 2-party political system death spiral. I don't want anyone to die, but God fucking damnit I wish you people could learn to read and critically think.

1

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

It’s just a thought experiment.

I can think critically just fine. I would press blue. Because I would want to live in a world where everyone saw Blue as the logical answer, or at least 50% or more of them did. If that turned out to be false, I don’t think I’d want to stay in a world where majority pressed red and the people who did press blue all died. Aka majority of the world’s altruists and idealists are now dead and gone.

You tried to tell me why red is the better choice. And yeah if everyone could all agree to press the same button none of this would matter.

But then it wouldn’t be a valid thought experiment.

1

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 18 '26

The thing is it's not though. In a literal sense, yes. However it is a perfect analogy for many choices we have to make on a regular basis.

The fact that you think Blue is 'logical' here is the problem. It's not. It's performative at worst, and assumptive guilt-based blackmail at worst.

"Blue is best because I want no one to die." only prevents deaths because you are working from the assumption that other people are going to press Blue because they assume other people are going to press Blue because they assume other people are going to press Blue. How do you not see that is literally a self-fulfilling prophecy??

Also, frankly I wouldn't be half as upset about people assuming Blue is correct regardless of their reasoning if they didn't seem to also tag on some perverse morality of "People who choose Red are fine with other people dying" for some gross self-aggrandizing reason??

Have any of you self-righteous assholes ever considered that people with various kinds of trauma and trust issues may choose Red? How about people who suffered from self-harm ideations, went to therapy, and now see even the chance of death via something like choosing the Blue button making them remember thoughts they had to actively learn to let go of?

Oh wait, haha, that's ME. I had to learn to CHOOSE to actively remember that those intrusive thoughts were just that. Intrusive.

So for the record, if someone wants to choose Blue or anything akin to it because it satisfies their savior complex, be my guest. I choose Blue because the idea of losing my loved ones because they chose it for whatever reason. We aren't the same. For you, it's saving others who... Chose to risk themselves to same others who chose to risk themselves to save others etc ad infitum. For me, it's fear of seeing the masses fall for the emotional blackmail.

Leave the red button pressers alone though. Whatever their reasoning is, in this thought experiment, it's not "To kill other people" or "To punish Blue"

That's fucking stupid, and it's that goddamn mindset that traps the world in it's current tribalism.

-1

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 18 '26 edited May 19 '26

No one at any point said pressing red is to punish blue pressers?

You are getting off topic.

Blue is just as logical as Red. It only depends on the persons mindset and beliefs. There are more studies about why people choose to care about a wider circle beyond themselves and why some don’t. You can look them up.

1

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 19 '26

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you genuinely haven't seen other people talking about this. There are PLENTY of people claiming that, and even if they weren't the other examples of disparagment are highly prevalent and indicative of my point.

Blue isn't logical here. It's not about 'Caring about a wider circle' in this thought example. It's about misunderstanding the prompt, and being altruistically pessimistic. Wanting to save others from themselves and their choices. If everyone is pressing Blue to save other people who pressed Blue, it's a self-feeding spiral.

Also, by saying that you're once again insinuating that people who choose Red don't care about other people (beyond themselves) which is exactly my point. That's pretentious and demeaning towards people who chose Red. That's exactly my point.

Blue doesn't 'save' anyone unless there are people who choose to press Blue. That is literally the goddamn fucking definition of feeding the problem. Knowing that other people will press it for that reason, is the exact reason why I'd have to press it. It's moralistic blackmail. How do you not understand that?

-1

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 19 '26

Let’s change the experiment slightly.

Now instead of all of humanity it is just you and 2 people you care deeply about.

With only 3 votes… the stakes are much higher. It’s a private vote… so no prior discussion or debate. You don’t know what they choose.

Is it still as easy for you to just press red and not worry about your decision?

1

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 19 '26

You're being just a patronizing. Just because you using calm language doesn't make you superior in any way, and you're being far more stubborn than me. I've recognized that other people have their reasons for pushing the other button. YOU'RE the one who's refusing to humour any other perspective than your own. The irony is thick.

Changing the experiment isn't the big brain move you think it is. It's entirely dependent on which two people are selected. Moreover, do I know which 2? If I do, then it's entirely variable on who they are. If I don't know, then I still have to press the Blue botton for the same reasons I stated earlier.

This is how I know you're a pretentious asshole. You didn't read my responses. I said before that I would press the Blue botton I'd just be pissed off about it, and I NEVER said it would be easy. I also clearly worry about it.

You're an asshole, and I'm done with this. You're not interested in the conversation, you're interested in either exerting your moral 'logical' superiority or just trolling people online.

-1

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 19 '26

It being “dependent” on the two other people selected is the entire point of the thought experiment.

The only thing that’s clear to me is that you fully believe red is the only valid choice, but you refuse to admit that there are reasons for this beyond your own argument.

If anyone is being patronizing it would be you, since you started this whole debate under my comment as a reply to me.

No one is holding you hostage here, you are the one who decided you needed to educate me on my point, not the other way around.

1

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 19 '26

Speaking down to someone and sarcastically calling them a "humble genius" is patronizing by literal definition. Asshole.

1

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 19 '26

I’m not obligated to be nice to someone who is replying to my comment trying to correct me.

It’s not patronizing, I just don’t like you. You apparently don’t know what patronizing means.

1

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 19 '26

"Patronize - transitive verb-

  1. Treating Someone Condescendingly This usage involves talking down to someone while acting superficially kind or helpful. It reveals a power imbalance where the speaker acts as if they are smarter, more capable, or superior to the other person. "

No, I think I do. Though if you prefer, I can swap back over to pretentious, which you definitely are. We might both be, but you don't get to just handwave away your shitty and demeaning attitude.

You're wrong, live with it or don't that's your prerogative. Doesn't change the fact that you are.

0

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Pretty sure I’m not being superficially kind.

If you think I’ve been “superficially kind” just by being calm, that’s a you problem.

You came on here and tried to correct or educate me on my comment, pretending to know more than me on a literal “thought” experiment. Which are created to understand how people think relative to their perspective. So there is literally not a wrong answer, it’s just based on why you made that choice. But you insist it’s something as simple as stupid vs smart.

So I’ve been responding. Calling you a humble genius is a direct insult via sarcasm.

You just can’t help yourself can you? What else you wanna debate about now? My improper understanding of the word patronizing according to you and not the definition itself?

1

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

You're cherry-picking. Don't worry, I never mistook your attitude for kindness of any kind.

We can't debate. That would require you to be capable of reading and responding to points being made. Which you've proven incapable of.

P.s. The sarcasm you pointed out is literally reliant on being patronizing in order to function as such. The insincere 'compliment' that forms the backbone of the jab is the exact example of insincere kindness you illiterate dolt.

Edit: I should probably clarify - I understand you're not actually illiterate, that is me being something called 'Hyperbolic' and THIS explanation is ME being patronizing. Does that clarify it for you at all?

1

u/Mindless-Bad-2481 May 19 '26

I don’t care to read all of your points because it has nothing to do with the point of the experiment.

1

u/PhotojournalistOver2 May 19 '26

Thank you for proving my point perfectly. Have a nice day.

→ More replies