Button Poll #2: Only those with normal cognitive capacity are given buttons.

[Thermal]

NVM, IJCE.

I guess that was our hit and run "Red Voters are just swell" PSA for the day. Tune in a few days from now and we'll be taking it from the top.

ETA: just to kick it off for EC to ignore again:

The outcome of the button pushing that is unacceptable is a 51-99% Red win. Therefore, many of us will vote Blue to ensure that Red does not reach 51%, even though it means (theoretically, not really) putting ourselves at needless risk. We risk our own security because if those selfish bastards win at less than 100% (guaranteed), we'll be staring down mass graves and global chaos.

@Emily's Cat : do you understand YET that Blue voters get that they are putting themselves at risk, but have thought it through farther than you have and are willing to take that safe bet? And yes, as we see in every poll, here and elsewhere, the bet is a safe one.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure. But not everyone will take that option. And all that has to happen if we want to save them is for more than 50% of voters to risk their lives to choose blue.

By engaging in the exact same risky behavior.

You're not jumping in front of a car to save a kid that fell off the sidewalk, you're jumping in front of a car to save someone who jumped in front of a car. You're not risking a slip off the edge of a cliff to save someone who stumbled and fell, you're jumping off a cliff to save someone who intentionally jumped off a cliff.

This 'no, you are choosing to take hard drugs with them in hopes of saving them, can't you see that's ridiculous on its face' stuff is childish. I'm risking weird cosmic death. There's no version of drug addiction that saves people if everyone does it. If you can find a risky behaviour that actually does become safe if everyone does it, then you can use that.

It's a weird cosmic death that everyone is capable of avoiding and nobody is at risk by accident or innocence. You're engaging in the exact same risky behavior that you're trying to save someone else for... on the hope that enough other people will engage in the risky behavior with you and then it won't be risky anymore.

(ETA: I do mean a real one that we might have a genuine non childish reaction to, not a spontaneously invented fiction specifically invented to make THIS invented fiction look like you'd have to be obviously droolingly stupid to try it. The whole POINT of blue voters is that they DO think a significant number of peoples' instincts will be to choose blue.

In your green alien ray one for example, ◊◊◊◊ yes I am keeping my eyes open, and so is everyone else who isn't a coward. We all know a LOT of people are going to look at the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ aliens.)

(And why exactly have you added an element of injury or discomfort to your 'save everyone' success conditions?)

I have an objection to being called a coward for not risking my life to save someone who risked their life for no good goddamned reason.

To be fair... it's similar in sentiment if not style to my objection to pacifists. Oh I get the hypothetical notion of "wouldn't it be great if we could all be peaceful". That's a fine wish, it's lovely. But in reality... pacifists rely on other people being willing to engage in the violence they decry so that pacifists don't all get killed. Their choice to not defend themselves ends up either resulting in their death... or it results in the deaths of other people who feel obligated to die on behalf of those too obstinate and selfish to save themselves.

You seem to view me as a coward and to judge me negatively for not risking my life to save someone who willfully and knowingly endangered themselves. On the other hand, I could argue that you're selfish for placing yourself in danger and expecting other people to save you from yourself.

In reality, I'd be perfectly happy if all of you would just say "You know, I chose blue for what I think are good reasons, but I understand that choosing red is also a reasonable and appropriate thing to do. Let's all be happy that the net result still worked out."

 

[Emily's Cat]

We risk our own security because if those selfish bastards win at less than 100% (guaranteed), we'll be staring down mass graves and global chaos.

Yep, I totally see how you're not viewing reds as immoral or bad at all. Totally a neutral perspective on your part. No assigned malice at all.

 

[Thermal]

Yep, I totally see how you're not viewing reds as immoral or bad at all. Totally a neutral perspective on your part. No assigned malice at all.

Correct. A selfish bastard is not immoral or bad. It's just what they are, very likely just weak and self-absorbed. That doesn't rise to malice.

Any thoughts on the multiple questions, comments, and challenges you've been ignoring? Such as the ones you took the extra time to snip out of the very post you are quoting?

ETA: added clarification

 

[Thermal]

I have an objection to being called a coward for not risking my life to save someone who risked their life for no good goddamned reason.

Stopping a Red win is a good goddamned reason.

On the other hand, I could argue that you're selfish for placing yourself in danger and expecting other people to save you from yourself.

Blues expect no one to do anything for them. We expect that people generally will vote Blue, and we join them while asking for nothing. Not one peep to anyone pleading for help to get out of the blender or cliff or lava pit or speeding trolley or whatever zany things you pull next. And we are right! We don't need help. We win and ask nothing from anyone.

In reality, I'd be perfectly happy if all of you would just say "You know, I chose blue for what I think are good reasons, but I understand that choosing red is also a reasonable and appropriate thing to do.

I'll bet you would. But we won't, because that would be dishonest.

Let's all be happy that the net result still worked out."

Thanks to those who voted Blue. No thanks to Red Voters.

 

[Lithrael]

I have an objection to being called a coward for not risking my life (...)

To be fair, in this particular case, the only people whose behaviour I have implied is cowardly are those who would shut their eyes in the face of an alien death ray because someone told them doing that would keep them safe.

Now that I think about it, much like red pushers are not personally killing anyone, I didn't even actually call eye-closers cowards. I said people who were not cowards would keep their eyes open. Why are you accusing me of calling people cowardly? I very literally did not do that.

 

[Thermal]

@Emily's Cat : EC. Babe. Thermal loves ya. You know Thermal loves ya. Thermal just doesn't like little milquetoast jabbing. Take it to the mat, and fast.

That said, I wouldn't fault a Red voter in certain contexts. The problem is, you and Rolfe are presenting the worst possible contexts.

Here's a good example: "I voted Red because I can't allow my fate to be in someone else's hands. I have to be in control of my own destiny, and if that jeopardizes the Blue Voters, sorry man but I didn't make up this poll or its consequences. I need to stay alive at all costs for my kids". I actually wouldn't have much of a problem with that argument, even though I disagree.

That's not what you and Rolfe argue, though. You feign intellectual superiority, outright calling Blues stupid, and imply that we are to dumb to even understand the argument. You insult each and every one of us with that kind of posting, especially because you stopped thinking about it at step #1, and we kept going a few more steps.

We got the game theory when reading the OP in the first poll, and we thought it through some more (after you stopped thinking about it), and came to a different conclusion. If you want to Sea Lion your choice as acceptable, maybe you shouldn't keep insulting those you want to accept it?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Just for clarity... you think that voting to save your own life when it doesn't need to be risked in the first place is identical to voting for other people to die?

Just for clarity, I think that voting for other people to die is identical to voting for people to die.

Voting for an outcome explicitly labeled: "Only red voters survive" is necessarily voting for anyone who doesn't vote red to die.

You have had explained to you numerous times what people's reasons are for voting blue, what they perceive the need to be. You need to stop saying that it's "for no reason".

To answer your other question: yes, all the voters have agency. The red voters are using that agency to vote for people to die.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I don't agree, although The_Animus didn't set it up well.



If only 10% vote red, then everybody survives - not only red voters. Everyone, including the person who voted red. Your button labels are incorrect. "Everybody survives" is true for blue voters in this case, but "Only red voters survive" is false.

As I said, the labels describe what happens *if enough people press the corresponding button*. "Enough" in this case means more than 50%.

If enough people (i.e., more than 50%) press the button labeled "Everybody survives", then everybody survives.
If enough people (i.e., more than 50%) press the button labeled "Only red voters survive", then only red voters survive.

The labels are correct.

 

[Dutchman]

As I said, the labels describe what happens *if enough people press the corresponding button*. "Enough" in this case means more than 50%.

If enough people (i.e., more than 50%) press the button labeled "Everybody survives", then everybody survives.
If enough people (i.e., more than 50%) press the button labeled "Only red voters survive", then only red voters survive.

The labels are correct.

The red button should be labeled "Perfectly Safe"
The blue button should be labeled "WARNING! Lethal danger!"
And, according to the hypothetical, the nature and circumstances of the lethal danger are clear to all buttonpushers.
With that in mind, I am of the opinion that the blue pushers really are too dumb to live.

All the while keeping in mind that it's a hypothetical, and so the deaths are hypothetical as well. No actual mass grave digging has to take place.

 

[sphenisc]

Why wouldn't you re-evaluate your selection if there's no chance that someone will pick blue at random or without knowledge? Why do you think anyone would pick blue, given that everyone understands the question and has the cognitive ability to make an informed choice?

...- what is your remaining motivation for choosing blue.

My assumption is that blue may be chosen by people who wish to commit suicide and have an option which is presumably relatively painless and avoids requiring other people to assist directly at an individual level.

I am as okay with pressing red as I am with voting for right-to-die legislation.

 

[Rolfe]

Stopping a Red win is a good goddamned reason.

Blues expect no one to do anything for them. We expect that people generally will vote Blue, and we join them while asking for nothing. Not one peep to anyone pleading for help to get out of the blender or cliff or lava pit or speeding trolley or whatever zany things you pull next. And we are right! We don't need help. We win and ask nothing from anyone.

I'll bet you would. But we won't, because that would be dishonest.

Thanks to those who voted Blue. No thanks to Red Voters.

Red voters aren't voting because they want to "win". If it all goes the way you think it will, red voters will be entirely content.

 

[Rolfe]

You're engaging in the exact same risky behavior that you're trying to save someone else from... in the hope that enough other people will engage in the risky behavior with you and then it won't be risky any more.

I could argue that you're selfish for placing yourself in danger and expecting other people to save you from yourself.

Just picking out the kernel of this argument.

Thermal balances his naked contempt and hatred for red voters with an astonishing paen to the selfless virtue of blue voters. It's becoming comical.

You're not heroes risking your lives for the sake of others. You're damn fools who have knowingly put yourselves in a position that (you believe) obliges others to risk their lives to save you.

 

[Thermal]

Red voters aren't voting because they want to "win". If it all goes the way you think it will, red voters will be entirely content.

Agreed. And? You are also entirely content with the mass graves you voted to fill. It's all about you, and ◊◊◊◊ everyone else with a chainsaw. We get it.

 

[Thermal]

You're not heroes risking your lives for the sake of others.

Correct. At a choice of 'ONLY Red survives' versus 'Everyone survives', we choose the latter. That's all.

You're damn fools who have knowingly put yourselves in a position that (you believe) obliges others to risk their lives to save you.

Negative. I don't believe anyone is obligated to do anything, certainly not on my behalf.

We have two buttons to choose from. Red gives a highly undersirable result. Blue gives the optimal. So we choose Blue with no thought about others or obligations or begging for help lest the steamroller runs over us, or any of your other crackhead misdirections.

We know the game theory that Blue might be killed by the Red Voters (perfectly accurate), but we don't consider that a serious risk. Most people are not like that, we reason, and will vote Blue. So we vote Blue asking nothing of anyone else, and we win over and over.

 

[Lithrael]

Thermal balances his naked contempt and hatred for red voters with an astonishing paen to the selfless virtue of blue voters.

It's not selfless virtue to think it would suck to deal with the aftermath of a world where all blue pushers died. How dumb they all had to be to die doesn't enter into it.

You guys do see the poll results with blue coming in well over 50% every time, right? That would seem to me to indicate that even if people would approach the question differently if it was 'real' there would still be a lot of deaths in an over 50% red world.

Not wanting so many deaths it will cause generational trauma and ◊◊◊◊ up the economy isn't selflessly virtuous.

Blue pushers can save you foolish red pushers from such a world, and probably will. You're welcome. /Thermal

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The red button should be labeled "Perfectly Safe"
The blue button should be labeled "WARNING! Lethal danger!"
And, according to the hypothetical, the nature and circumstances of the lethal danger are clear to all buttonpushers.

The labels you propose don't describe the outcomes, though; they *only* characterize the potential immediate effect on the individual who presses them, while the outcomes are explicitly characterized collectively in the OP. The red button is *not* perfectly safe; it risks untold carnage. But at least *you'll* be okay, right?

With that in mind, I am of the opinion that the blue pushers really are too dumb to live.

Well, yes, I can see how people who think others who vote differently deserve to die would find red attractive. Not sure if that's the flex you think it is, though.

 

[Dutchman]

The labels you propose don't describe the outcomes, though; they *only* characterize the potential immediate effect on the individual who presses them, while the outcomes are explicitly characterized collectively in the OP. The red button is *not* perfectly safe; it risks untold carnage. But at least *you'll* be okay, right?



Well, yes, I can see how people who think others who vote differently deserve to die would find red attractive. Not sure if that's the flex you think it is, though.

The red button is perfectly safe for anyone that pushes it, which all are free to do. Nobody is in any way required to push the dangerous blue button.

And "deserve to die", really? We all must, at some point. No deserving is involved.

As far as the untold carnage is concerned, I supposed the blue pushers would just keel over and die. There was really no mention of any carnage.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The red button is perfectly safe for anyone that pushes it, which all are free to do. Nobody is in any way required to push the dangerous blue button.

I don't think anybody is confused about that at this point.

And "deserve to die", really? We all must, at some point. No deserving is involved.

"I am of the opinion that the blue pushers really are too dumb to live."

Deserving is very much involved in that opinion.

 

[Dutchman]

"I am of the opinion that the blue pushers really are too dumb to live."

Deserving is very much involved in that opinion.

Those that are not too dumb to live will die just as well. That was my point.