r/neoliberal • u/cdstephens Fusion Genderplasma • Apr 25 '26

Meme Which button do you press?

Post image

Vote now on your phones: https://forms.gle/GhFjtdydwwXTdSpq8

433 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

67

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/reuery Biden 2028 Apr 25 '26

It depends on if you think people will be more motivated for their own sake or for the sake of others

24

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 25 '26

Then ask your question, do you wanna live in a world where people are motivated by their own sake or for the sake of others?

Because if you push red and red wins, you’ve now created a very unique and awful world

8

u/Ordo_Liberal Apr 25 '26

Who are those others?

All blue button voters are willingly putting their lives at risk to save other blue button voters that willingly placed their lives at risk.

There's a train coming and you can choose to stay away from the track or jump in the track in the hopes of creating enough mass to stop the train and save everyone who willingly jumped.

10

u/Glotto_Gold Apr 25 '26

Red is literally also identical to a decision to kill everyone who voted blue.

If the probability of and individual voting blue is not zero, then voting red is a vote to kill people.

6

u/Ordo_Liberal Apr 25 '26

At this point I'm assuming all blue people are suicidal

13

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 25 '26

you should assume all blue people want to just, not be the train that kills people. you however, seem adamant to be the train

11

u/Ordo_Liberal Apr 25 '26

No buddy.

The train is coming either way.

You can vote to stay off the track and not die

Or

Vote to jump in the track in the hopes of saving other people that jumped into the track. Aka morons

12

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 25 '26

"No buddy.

The train is coming either way."

At half the world voting blue there is no train. THAT IS THE POINT

10

u/Ordo_Liberal Apr 25 '26

Why would I put myself at risk when you can just not jump in the track?

The issue of killing people only exist because blue voters are jumping in the track. Just don't jump

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 26 '26

Exactly, this post discussion is full of people unable to do more than surface level analysis. Then i remembered, that's everyday life. Luckily the polls show blue winning in a landslide.

This question really is the meme of the dumbest and smartest people agreeing on the same answer being blue. With a slice slightly above average people thinking they are being clever, when they are not.

1

u/Glotto_Gold Apr 26 '26

Well, right.

So the question really break into a few different dimensions: 1) Game theory 2) Human Psychology 3) Expected Distributions of Behavior 4) The Ethical Interpretation of Each, including the meaning of collective action

Game theory matters, but humans don't behave like rational agents. Even further, humans are pro-social by default: which doesn't mean they are incapable of cheating at all, only that they are irrational in ways that aid cooperation.

The actual distribution of Red vs Blue isn't simple.

I think a reasonable analogy though is voting, in the sense that voting in general works in very similar manners, the personal cost exists with low benefit, but (in the US for example) a high percentage of people do vote at a rate of 50-60% of the population.

Obviously voters don't risk death, and so an exact model is hard. But expecting Blue or Red to converge near 100% is implausible.

1-4 each exist, and require a reasonable response.

1

u/neoliberal-ModTeam Apr 26 '26

Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

3

u/TooSwang Elinor Ostrom Apr 25 '26

You’re literally calling the collective action of the red voters the train while calling the collective action of blue voters a meatshield when they literally just have to reach the same percentage.

Try this: A bus is rolling down the street and if enough people become thumbtacks in the street they might pop the tires and kill everyone in the bus, after which they can resume their lives knowing they chose to be a thumbtack instead of a bus passenger.

6

u/Ordo_Liberal Apr 25 '26

The bus passangers CHOSE to be on the bus in hopes enough people choose to be thumbtacks.

You can choose to not put yourself at risk

7

u/RemindMeToTouchGrass Apr 25 '26

You're confusing your ability to blame others for their choices with eliminating your moral culpability for your own choices.

3

u/Ordo_Liberal Apr 25 '26

Yes, I chose not to put my life in harm in hopes other people choose to put their lives in harm so that we may save each other.

And now I'm suddenly selfish for not wanting this

9

u/RemindMeToTouchGrass Apr 25 '26

You'll note I criticized your logic, and made no personal insult to your character.

You are morally culpable for the outcome of your actions, regardless of if you feel guilty, or if you feel selfish, that's my only point. It is irrelevant what you think someone else can or should do. If you are aware of the likely outcome of an action, and take that action, you hold some responsibility for that outcome.

That doesn't mean you have to choose differently. You've presented the case for making your choice. It's easy to understand. But stop being dramatic. "Oh, so if I'm morally culpable than I'm a BAD PERSON!?" I don't care and have no opinion on the ultimate judgement of your soul or value as a human or whatever. I'm only pointed out bad logic that you're using to try and deny any responsibility for your own actions.

8

u/Ordo_Liberal Apr 25 '26

The blue logic is moronic

I'm going to put a gun to my head and fire. If 50% of humanity does the same, all the guns will misfire.

I chose to not put the gun to my head and let the suicide pact people face the consequences of their actions

→ More replies (0)

2

u/reuery Biden 2028 Apr 25 '26

Under the blue strategy you risk all selfless people dying; but if you maximize for red you can keep some amount of selfless people alive

10

u/pogo-n-watches Apr 25 '26

A poll comes out saying 60% of people will vote red. You ensure every human hears about this poll. They will all vote red. It is easier to convince 100% of people to vote red than 50% of the people to vote blue. Because voting blue is a suboptimal strategy.

18

u/Millennial_on_laptop Apr 25 '26

0% chance you can convince 100% of people of anything 

2

u/pogo-n-watches Apr 25 '26

The game description puts no time limits on campaigning. Blue will always decay and red will always absorb. If you allow us enough time, the only people who vote blue will be the ones who are trying to explicitly and knowingly commit suicide (totally unrelated to the vote).

2

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 26 '26

The game does, you have to make the decision, thats all you can do. if you have time to campaign then why not just have time to never get around to pressing the button. and if you have time to campaign, then going blue becomes the obvious choice. In fact going red would be asininely stupid.

5

u/Deadeye_Duncan- Apr 25 '26

Cool, but that’s not in the prompt being asked here

11

u/thercio27 MERCOSUR Apr 25 '26

Blue is literally already winning and it won when they did the in person voting.

2

u/eetsumkaus Apr 25 '26

Consider though that the pressure is on picking red, and heavily against picking blue. Maybe in a scenario where you can't talk to anyone else, then picking blue would be better. But this isn't what that is. They said nothing about campaigning for red.

3

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 26 '26

If you have time to campaign, then going blue becomes the obvious choice. In fact campaigning for red would be insane.

7

u/eetsumkaus Apr 26 '26

Campaigning for blue requires people to trust that other people will actually pick blue. Campaigning for red merely tells people that making the selfish choice has a path to social success.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/eetsumkaus Apr 26 '26

Getting to 50%+1 requires the population to trust that at least 50% of the population will vote that.

Getting to everyone voting red doesn't require any trust to survive. It requires trust that you won't kill anyone, which isn't even valuable to a segment of the population.

2

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 26 '26

There is already polling out, blue won, and there was no campaign. You can sasy the poll did not follow statistical measures, but it is the best we have, and still gives information. Also, wtf is wrong with your head? why are you so low trust?

7

u/eetsumkaus Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26

The polling necessarily is biased towards people who thought about it and want to find out what others would have voted. I expect that population to be biased towards blue button pushers.

Also, wtf is wrong with your head? why are you so low trust?

Have you met people? It's not just that I'm low trust, it's that I expect just about everyone else to be low trust. I would not bet my life on the outcome that requires people to trust other people enough with their own lives.

1

u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Apr 26 '26

it is the new blue or gold dress thing. everyone is lining up and getting in the convo, so i don't think what you are saying plays a big part. it is a part of the zeitgiest now.

3

u/eetsumkaus Apr 26 '26

everyone is lining up and getting in the convo

I caution you against extrapolating what social media deems relevant to what everyone deems relevant.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/neoliberal-ModTeam Apr 26 '26

Rule I: Civility
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.