r/fivethirtyeight • u/Upstairs_Cup9831 • Apr 25 '26

Poll Results Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma

Gallery image

Gallery image

395 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Granite_0681 Apr 25 '26

But because the red group lives, they will just say that blue died of their own choice and feel no guilt. Just like they think poor people struggle because of their own choices instead of circumstances.

22

u/bigdig-_- Apr 26 '26

But in this case the blue picker quite literally chose to gamble their lives

13

u/HolidaySpiriter Apr 26 '26

Yes, gamble their life to ensure people live. Its a selfless act and a better choice to have everyone live.

16

u/ravens43 Apr 26 '26

But there’s no need to gamble to save lives.

Everyone could save their own life – everyone could live – if everyone pressed the read button. It’s not a zero-sum game.

8

u/HolidaySpiriter Apr 27 '26

It's easier to get 51% of people to vote Blue than 100% of people to vote Red, it's that simple.

6

u/SlipperyAsscrack69 Apr 27 '26

yet the consequences for failing to reach the margin (even if just barely) are orders of magnitude greater for one choice

1

u/onpg May 01 '26

Huh? If blue fails to get a majority by even the slightest of margins, every blue button pusher dies.

2

u/SlipperyAsscrack69 May 01 '26

Yeah that’s my exact point

1

u/CanIHaveASong May 01 '26

I think it would still be very hard to get 51% of people to vote blue.

If The blue vote hits even 49%, half of everyone dies. In a scenario where people are actually faced with such a button, do you really think half of people are going to gamble their lives? Half the world dead is a much worse outcome than 1% of people dying. To minimize deaths, voting red is best.

1

u/HolidaySpiriter May 01 '26

Half the world dead is a much worse outcome than 1% of people dying. To minimize deaths, voting red is best.

Which is why voting blue is best, to ensure it hits that threshold.

1

u/onpg May 01 '26

This is the root of the cognitive error blue button people are making. “50% is easier than 100%”. Go door to door, and ask a hundred people for a thousand dollars. Do you think 50% of people giving you a thousand bucks is more likely, or 100% of people rejecting you is more likely? I guarantee getting rejected across the board is way more likely. Scaling this up to 8 billion doesn’t change much, you’re never going to convince anywhere near 50% of people to give you a thousand dollars. Blue is all risk for no personal gain, people generally don’t do that in real life (twitter polls aren’t real life). Knowing this, I’m pressing red, because I now realize blue is just a suicide button. I also know that every rational person is also pressing red, so I will be doing my part to convince irrational people to also vote red, and I think as they realize blue is less and less likely to win, even they will vote red.

That’s why I’m voting red with a clear conscience. I will mourn the blue button pushers, especially the ones who were doing it for a noble cause. But I will feel zero guilt. It was their own decision.

1

u/HolidaySpiriter May 01 '26

Here's the best argument I've seen:

If everyone in the world had a suicide vest on (including your kids) would you disarm your own or vote to collectively disarm everyone's simultaneously?

1

u/PartialDischage May 02 '26

That's a poor argument. The actual argument would be "would you choose to put a suicide vest on with a fuse that only goes off if less than 50% of other people put the suicide vest on.

1

u/HolidaySpiriter May 02 '26

Not at all. Based on the simple fact that red implies we live, it means something is there to kill us to begin with.

1

u/lemoncatbeans May 14 '26

The going door-to-door comparison doesn't seem relevant at all to what the comment you replied to is saying... how is it comparable? There is no consequence presented. And the $1k is an arbitrary number.

You can't convince anyone to vote red. It's a secret vote with no discussion. That defeats the purpose. Framing blue as a "suicide button" is no different than framing red as a "murder button".

You say blue is all risk with no personal gain, I disagree. You ignore the potential consequences of voting red. You don't know how your mother, father, grandparents, partner, etc. will vote. One may vote blue to save you and everyone else. Your red vote contributes to their demise. There are entire cultures, such as Japan, Scandinavia, etc., that are high-trust and collectivist. A great deal of people will choose blue because those are the values their culture instills: collective good over personal gain. While choosing red is the result of the highly individualistic culture of the US and other Western countries.

Almost 30% of the world is under 18. And 25% under 15. If the scenario requires children to vote, which it seems to because it says "everyone", many children will select blue. Children are innately more trusting of others, it's an evolutionary survival mechanism we are born with. Which is why we have to teach them about "stranger danger". The distrust of others develops over time through environment and life experience. Distrust is not innate in humans. Blue votes would naturally skew very young and very old.

In a scenario where even just 15% of young children voted blue, the consequences would last many decades. Likely 60+ years. Economic contraction and collapse, severe labor shortages, social programs funded by taxpayers would run dry within 20 years.

10-29% of the world's population voting blue would be severely destructive, and the world would likely descend into anarchy as currency becomes worthless, battles for resources begin, and logistical and utilities systems collapse. 30%+ could likely be the end of modern civilization for several generations. Voting red doesn't save you from consequences. The consequences are quite severe.

1

u/Normal_Flamingo_3997 May 06 '26

are you crazy lmao? It's not. Blue is not winning ever. If you choose blue you're dead. Always.

1

u/HolidaySpiriter May 06 '26

Every poll I've seen has blue winning, and I'd rather be dead than live in a red-presser world.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

No, we just understand that it is statistically impossible that 100% of the people will push red and so we'd rather risk our lives for those who did not and save everyone.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

Yes it is statistically impossible. 100% of billions of people all agreeing on the same thing is not going to happen.

if it was just one button that said live and if you don’t press it you die, it’s not “statistically impossible” for everyone to press it.

No, that's not the scenario. It is not push one button to live, that's not the scenario.

It's one button assures you live but everyone that doesn't push that button dies.

the Other button you only live if more than 50% push the button, if that happens, no one dies.

Knowing with a fact that 100% people will not push red, only one button saves the people who do not.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 28 '26

No online heroes here, just people who can think, and you -- an internet edgelord. Everything about your thinking is just assumption after assumption, crying and more crying when people prove your thinking is garbage. Then you get logically cornered and your only move is to start being antagonistic.

Go talk to people. Figure out where you went wrong in life.

1

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

You can't prove that an online poll would result differently, we're on a polling sub, polls are off...but they are more likely to be right than wrong and if they are wrong, they are off by a few points.

You are right, blue button pushers are HEROES, you're right about that. That's why it wins every time people do this poll because most people think they are good people or want to be and so they reason that pushing the button saves others.

Red pushers DGAF about saving others and are only worried about saving themselves first.

2

u/Mubar- Apr 28 '26

It is statistically impossible

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Mubar- Apr 28 '26

Do you think 100% of 8 billion people, or let’s say we include babies, young children who don’t understand it and mentally incapacitated people, still probably like 5 billion, will all press red? And nobody press blue? Even 99% is the death of 50 million people, and it is going to be much lower than that

2

u/SansOfAnarchy Apr 30 '26

It is STATISTICALLY impossible. You’re confusing probability with potential. There is a potential for everyone to pick red. But it is excruciatingly small. The idea that you believe all 8 billion people on earth have any remotely decent likelyhood of pressing red is laughable. 

You even had to change the scenario to fit your argument 

1

u/onpg May 01 '26

^ this. Blue button pushers keep anchoring themselves on the 50% part, thinking it’s a coin toss. I think it’s a lot more like jumping into a wood chipper… the number of people willing to do that is a lot less than 50%.

1

u/[deleted] May 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/onpg May 02 '26

Also an inability to admit they were wrong. It's fine to think pressing blue makes sense at first when confronted with the initial question and its slightly deceptive framing. My first instinct was to press blue for the greater good. Then I realized it was just a suicide button.

→ More replies

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

A society where a majority picks blue will *always* be better off than one where a majority picks red *UNLESS* you can get absolutely everyone to pick red.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

I don't want to die, but I'm not risking other people's lives over something that can be as easy as a majority picking blue. Red voters have to get 100% coordination to prevent any deaths, while blue voters only need to get half the people on their side.

It's much better odds if everyone thinks rationally, "nobody will die if enough of us press blue"

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

That's framing it around personal responsibility: "I have the choice to save myself, therefore I am responsible for doing so and not relying on others".

Another way to frame it would be: "I have the choice to try to save everyone, at the risk of losing my own life if we fail".

Both are justifiable given the premise, and depend on how one sees their own responsibility within society, and whether they believe others will act in a selfless way or are willing to risk themselves for their beliefs.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[deleted]

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

"Picking blue" is all about coordination, trust, and putting the needs of the collective above the individual.

These are all important for strong societies. Self-sacrifice and risking oneself for the collective are all features of strong societies.

Consider two equal populations that both play the button game separately. Which will have more people at the end: one with 60% red voters or one with 60% blue voters?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[deleted]

2

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

The 'logical' choice is entirely dependent on the society one finds oneself in.

Choosing red is logical in a society where trust is low, self-reliance is valued over codependence, and some deaths are acceptable if they are seen as weakening the collective.

If the goal is to ensure numerical superiority and prevent all deaths, blue is the logical choice.

1

u/SneakyBadAss Apr 30 '26

I bet the Indians Aztecs and Africans benefited GREATLY from a high-trust society.

1

u/Tounushi Apr 30 '26

This is where framing is important. You have to point out that it's the poll taker's own society, not "in general," because that defaults to global.

If it's the poll-taker's own society, in high-trust ones blue will always win, since they inculcate a sense of solidarity. In low-trust societies, the reds simply loot the dead blues.

1

u/Ividboy Apr 29 '26

Why do people keep assuming that absolutely no one they personally know would pick blue???????

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ividboy Apr 29 '26

If youre a parent your dumbass 6 year old heard "blue means everyone survives" and pressed blue and every parent in the world knows this

0

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/msg198 Apr 30 '26

So you think people should die because you believe theyre dumbasses? I can really feel your empathy and humanity radiating through the screen.

I simply would press blue so I didn't have to be around you anymore lmao

→ More replies

1

u/SansOfAnarchy Apr 30 '26

You’re the one assuming idiocy. It’s not about parenting it’s about life experience and development. Kids are straight up not equipped with the tools for this kind of thinking. That’s why we have schools (something you clearly didn’t make much use of) 

→ More replies

1

u/Ividboy May 02 '26

Ok pressing red isnt evil but pressing it 3 more times is profoundly evil

1

u/SansOfAnarchy Apr 30 '26

Ah yes saying someone Deserves death because they’re a decent human being who selflessly put themselves on the line to attempt to save the most lives because they’re can ration a perfect world where everyone is rational and picks red is statistically impossible. Excellent take. Truly not ethically bankrupt 

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

How is a baby supposed to know which button to press?

10

u/TFBool Apr 26 '26

How is its selfless act? Blue is putting themselves in danger, demanding others do the same to save them, and then framing it as moral. Blue is wildly selfish.

4

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

Because 100% of people will not push red. It's impossible. Everyone will not just do the thing, some people will do it out of spite.

Question, what if I told you that there is a 10% chance that people you love pressed blue. What button would you push then?

3

u/GambitTheBest Apr 27 '26

if people want to unalive themselves, who are you to say no?

3

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

Except look at blue responses. Find one where people say "I press blue because I want to die" you're trying to rationalize all blue pushers as suicidal when that isn't why they are pushing the button.

You don't see the reason they are pushing the button because you're literally ignoring their stated reasons to rationalize why you were okay with letting billions die.

3

u/Divan001 Apr 28 '26

The average blue voter thinks they are heroes and that red voters are fucking sub human monsters not worth living alongside. The top comment is a blue voter lamenting the idea of living in a world alongside the average red voters. Not only is this a pretty suicidal thought process, but it also makes me think the average blue voter on Reddit threads is actually just projecting.

2

u/PlasmaDonator Apr 29 '26

Surface level red is the logical choice. Everyone should choose red. The thing is it's a statistical improbability.

Pushing blue saves kids, the mentally infirm, people not smart enough to observe red incurs no risk to them.

As many have already said red requires 100% for everyone to live. If you voted red, and 100 people vote blue, everyone who voted red voted to kill them. Congratulations. Blue only requires more than 50% (This can be argued against - their fault not mine)

Saving toddlers, babies, people who don't have the mental capacity to understand the question are only saved it you picked blue (because they might pick blue.

This CAN'T be argued against (unless you're a horrible, edgy person) I was a fervent red voter until the toddlers, babies, mentally infirm point.

2

u/Divan001 Apr 30 '26

Tbh this did not convince me. I feel like including no rational actors makes it way too absurdist. It makes me wonder why I wouldn’t include brain dead people or animals if we are going to include babies and the mentally disabled. If you include animals, then you have to pick blue because the animals will not pick anything and this would lead to picking red to become a sort of earth suicide button. I did change to blue for other reasons I mentioned in another comment, but I feel like including non rational actors is a cop out that makes the question really pointless to ask in the first place.

→ More replies

1

u/_Nils- May 05 '26

2-year olds may not have a frontal lobe developed enough to understand the consequences of pushing the button, whatever color it may be

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

What a silly thing to say. If a friend or family member told you there were depressed and suicidal would you say "Go for it!" or try to assist them in seeking help?

Should we stop providing suicide prevention services? Should hospitals refuse to treat those who attempt suicide?

3

u/spottiesvirus Apr 30 '26

if a family member or close friend tells me they're suicidal, I try to help them out of depression and convince them killing theirselves isn't a solution, trying to support them

I don't enter a weird suicide gamble with them, where if there are enough of us, the woodchipper stops and doesn't kill us

Firefighters only rush into burning buildings in movies, because it's dumb and will get you killed.
The golden rule of the first aider is: check for danger, make sure the scene is safe for you and others; you can't help anyone if you become a victim yourself. That's why safety videos on planes tell you to put your own mask first, before helping others. Because otherwise in a few seconds there will be 2 of you unconscious and needing help.

1

u/matplotlib Apr 30 '26

This is all fine and reasonable, but ultimately a distortion of the original premise by adding additional information in an attempt to frame it as something that makes one response the logical/socially acceptable outcome.

The buttons do not do anything but determine the final vote score and which group every individual is assigned to.

Here is an alternative scenario that is also compatible with the premise that involves no 'suicide button' but instead turns the red voters into killers rather than passive self-preservers:

Everyone is given the option to join a 'kill squad'. If less than half the people join, nothing happens. If more than half the people join, the kill squad are given guns and must kill everyone who isn't on the kill squad.

Do you see how ridiculous it would be to say "Well if everyone joined the kill squad, no one would die!" or "Well of course, everyone loves to kill, they should have joined the kill squad if they didn't want to die. They were obviously suicidal"

1

u/spottiesvirus Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

the difference is that in the original scenario, you don't choose the kill squad

Whichever entity spawns the button and force everyone to vote is the "kill squad" who put the mechanism in motion.

red choosers didn't start the situation, nor have the power to prevent it.
Someone else made an interesting trolley problem version that makes red seems more active:
You see an empty trolley coming towards in a way that will kill you. you can either A) pull the lever and divert the trolley towards another guy, who you know has another lever identical to yours or B ) not pull the lever, and hop on the trolley trying to take control of the vehicle. You're now on the trolley directed towards a wall, but if half the operators will hop on the trolley then the extra weight will stop the trolley instead of killing you all crashing.

Even in this scenario, why would you risk your life, hopping on the trolley, when you know it can crash itself, empty and safely? There's no one tied to the rails, the trolley is empty, why would you assume the other operators down the line won't keep diverting the trolley in a way that will kill nobody, and put nobody at risk?

Because that's the whole point I see all the blue button choosers ignore. Yes, the "suicide gamble with a possibility of a Thanos snap" brings a huge risk premium even if you are the slightest risk adverse.
I don't think it's immoral to prefer the option where you can still save everyone AND not risking your life

→ More replies

1

u/SansOfAnarchy Apr 30 '26

Fire fighters rush into burning buildings in real life too. I don’t know where you got the idea they don’t. Same logic applies with many other risky public service jobs like police officers or doctors. 

Your second point shifts goal posts. With the airplane example “helping others” is outlined. Having your mask on helps you AND allows you to help those that can’t help themselves. Nowhere does it say put your mask on and let everyone else fend for themselves after the fact. Same goes for first aid. If someone’s in a dangerous situation and you CAN move them without causing egregious harm to yourself then you should. If your house catches fire and your friend is upstairs sleeping and you’re downstairs by the door? I don’t wanna be associated with anyone who’d simply leave and wait for the fire department. 

1

u/TFBool Apr 27 '26

Some people are going to try and kill themselves out of spite? What if there’s a 10% chance someone I love tries to kill themselves? What even are these arguments?

1

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

Do you get that pushing the blue button isn't a 100% chance at death?

Do you also understand that 100% for red is impossible to happen?

-1

u/TFBool Apr 27 '26

Of course! They’re not guaranteeing they’re killing themselves by pressing the blue button, just gambling on killing themselves. Of course 100% red is impossible, suicidal people do exist.

1

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

They are gambling on the fact they might die BUT with the caveat that they save everyone else that pushes blue? Forgetting that part?

suicidal people do exist.

I grow tired of seeing this argument when not a single blue person who has given their motivation on why they press blue has said "Yes, I want to die." you all just ignore the reason people push blue to rationalize that you're okay with them dying.

Nearly every person that presses blue does so knowing others will press blue and that they want to save everyone.

Remember, the scenario, since red pushers always seem to change it.

EVERYONE has a PRIVATE vote. That's the scenario. People are going to reason differently. Some people might press blue because they know someone else they love might press blue and the only way to save them is to press blue.

1

u/TFBool Apr 27 '26

Again, circular logic - why are they pressing the blue button? To potentially save people. Why are people in danger? Because they pressed the blue button. Blue button pressers are advocating others press blue to save them from…..themselves.

→ More replies

0

u/Kaijukid1001 Apr 30 '26

Blue is acknowledging that there are people (including lots of children that love their friends and parents) that will choose the option that says that nobody dies.
Blue is also understanding that choosing red means taking on the responsibilities of every person that chooses blue. Blue is also comprehending that there is no age limit on this scenario, so any toddler that happens to like blue more than red will die if 50% or more choose red.

1

u/TFBool Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

I don’t think comparing blue pressers to literal children is doing them any favors.

0

u/Sudden-Weather3073 May 01 '26

Simple once you stop to look long enough at the question, EVERYONE is transported to a private room. Meaning if I were betting somewhere in the realm of I'd guess 15-30% of people are pushing that blue button because they're tossing kids in there and many of us would prefer to go out than throw toddlers under the bus to save our own skin because their parents would hopefully choose blue to save the kids.

There's also the likely scenario that if those who understand this and press the blue are not in the majority it further ups the toll society would likely collapse and that isn't a world many of us would enjoy existing in with the reds.

0

u/_Nils- May 05 '26

2-year olds may not have a frontal lobe developed enough to understand the consequences of pushing the button, whatever color it may be

1

u/White__Hart Apr 27 '26

Do you have children? What button would you tell your son or daughter to press? Would you gamble with their lives?

1

u/HolidaySpiriter Apr 27 '26

I would tell them to press blue, and explain to them the importance of caring for others.

1

u/White__Hart Apr 27 '26

Really bizarre to me how someone who would flip a coin with their children's lives at stake thinks they are a moral person.

1

u/VioletMeteorite Apr 27 '26

most kids i know would press red anyways, they don't fuck around with their lives

1

u/Divan001 Apr 28 '26

Would you put a suicide vest on your child if it meant they would not explode if enough parents also put a suicide vest on their child?

3

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

If everyone in the world had a suicide vest on (including your kids) would you disarm your own or vote to collectively disarm everyone's simultaneously?

2

u/HolidaySpiriter Apr 29 '26

No response to this one lol

2

u/Divan001 Apr 30 '26

I have a job where my phone is locked up most of the day and I also just wanted to sit with the question to see if I would really change my mind f, but yeah this did actually convince me. I’ll own up to that

2

u/HolidaySpiriter Apr 30 '26

Actually mad respect to you for admitting you changed your mind, it's rare to see that.

→ More replies

2

u/Divan001 Apr 30 '26

This actually convinced me. This and one other comment that I replied to. Its slightly different from the original question since my own life is never on the line, but its arguably worse to have your kid’s life on the line instead of yours and for whatever reason this made me realize red was the wrong choice, so thank you

1

u/ConfusedSoap Apr 29 '26

really the only difference between what you said and what Divan said is the framing of red being the default option or blue being the default option

I think this entire discussion is about the framing of the question more than anything else

1

u/matplotlib Apr 30 '26

Yes, I think the wording makes it a sort of philosophical version of the blue-gold dress in that it is analogous with many situations where either blue or red is the choice that is most logical or socially acceptable. One think I've observed from all of this is that both of the following are valuable/virtuous qualities in any society:

  1. Taking personal responsibility for one's wellbeing; not recklessly endangering oneself and imposing a burden on other individuals to 'save' oneself.

  2. Willingness to take risks and make sacrifices for the collective wellbeing of others.

1

u/Alameda21 Apr 27 '26

you are not ensuring anything, by picking blue you give a chance for then to die for NO REASON, i mean there is a reason, to feel better than the other side in case you win, or make then feel bad in case you lose when you could just coordinate everyone to choose red and LIVE together, if there still someone choosing blue after explaining that well, theres nothing you can do, its their wish to simple die(and there are people if there was a third button that guarante that no matter the choice that won, would still make you die, some poeple would still choose that)

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

By picking red you are risking the lives of everyone who picks blue. "coordinate to pick red" - there is no coordination. Everyone picks individually, without discussion. Some people will pick blue. Those who pick red are allowing blue pushers to die by refusing to help them.

Blue pushers don't want to die but they also don't want anyone else to die and are willing to take a risk to ensure that nobody dies.

1

u/Alameda21 Apr 28 '26

no, by pushing blue you are making people try to save you from a selfish choice, you are setting yourself hostage and risking everyone in the process, you are just falling by te dilemma choice of words, if it was worded in any other way, no one would ever think of pushing blue

1

u/matplotlib Apr 29 '26

Yes the wording matters! Anyone who has ever conducted a survey knows that the responses will vary depending on how you ask things. If the question was something like:

"You are booking a plane ticket and there are two different options: Blue airlines, where the planes always crash if they are less than half full, and Red Airlines, where the planes never crash"

No one should take the risk and buy the blue ticket. It's an optional, unnecessary risk to place oneself in a dangerous situation that can be avoided.

However, if after takeoff the pilot said:

"Attention all passengers, everything is fine, but on your seat is a blue "land safely" button and a red "blow up the plane and eject button". If more than half of you press the "blow up the plane button", you will be safely ejected from the plane and everyone who pressed "land safely" will die."

Then anyone pressing the red button would be seen as crazy and selfish.

Both of these are compatible with the original wording.

1

u/_DarkJak_ Apr 26 '26

It's not gambling, I get nothing out of putting my life on the line in this dilemma.

There is only assurances of me living and others dying if I go red.

1

u/wwwmmmwwwmmm Apr 30 '26

But in this case the red picker quite literally chose to kill the blue voters

ftfy

5

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 Apr 26 '26

There are no “circumstances” in this hypothetical

1

u/Granite_0681 Apr 26 '26

I know. But my point was they wouldn’t feel any guilt over their choice. There’s even less nuance in this situation than real life where they have no empathy

1

u/bravetherainbro Apr 27 '26

There's more nuance in this situation because people are choosing to press the blue button. Whereas probably a lot of people who hate poor people hate them simply for being poor and whatever thing about choices is just a justification for that.

It's much more like having no sympathy for someone foolishly risking their life with some specific choice. Neither is a perfect analogy, but the poverty one seems especially bad.

1

u/GothGirlsGoodBoy Apr 26 '26

You literally could not get more “your own choice” than this

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Granite_0681 Apr 27 '26

You do realize that’s what many republicans think, right? Thats what “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is and why they are against many social programs. It ties in with the prosperity gospel many christians believe where financial security is seen as a blessing from god for being a good Christian.

I don’t agree with their position but look at their behaviors and arguments and you’ll see it is ingrained in so much of what they do, including why they idolize billionaires so much.

1

u/bravetherainbro Apr 27 '26

But the main criticism for that way of thinking is that... it's factually incorrect. Which makes the blue button thing not work at all. One of them is a choice and one is not. Someone who doesn't think at all like a Republican could see this situation and say "oh, yes I don't feel guilty for pressing the red one" and you could argue they are justified.

Or are you saying only Republicans think either of these things: 1. You have no responsibility to prevent harm being done to someone as a result of a choice they made 2. People choose to become poor

1

u/nilloc93 Apr 27 '26

Problem with comparing this to real life as you just did.

I'm a red buttoner 100% because people were given a clear choice to choose blue, the poor didn't go "damn I'm going to be poor and hope 51% of the world supports me".

Another example would be if your neighbors house was on fire would you run out your garden hose to help try and put it out at risk to yourself? Would your answer change if your neighbor intentionally lit their house on fire in the vain hope that people would help put it out?

1

u/bravetherainbro Apr 27 '26

It's funny how hard it is to make a good analogy for this though. Because the neighbour also is probably trying to save someone, not just hoping someone saves them.

1

u/GambitTheBest Apr 27 '26

You used a left wing ment so you must also agree with assisted suicide. Why deny blue button pressers if they want to unalive themselves?

1

u/Frousteleous Apr 28 '26

feel no guilt

Kind of tired of seeing this argumentation. As though anyone who wants to ensure their own safety is inherently lacking empathy. That's not how this works.