site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2770 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This has resurfaced and been trending for a while

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

Currently at 42.1% red and 57.9% blue.

What would you choose? (See also r/slatestarcodex discussion)

I was motivated to post because I have a convincing argument for blue:

  1. Stupid people will choose blue. You may not care about the disabled, elderly, generally moronic, etc. but this includes children and people who are "too generous": nice, but emotional, and devote their lives to charity

  2. Thanos snapping a decent amount of the population (including random children, and biased towards selflessness) will probably overall negatively affect society

  3. I probably won't die because most people choose blue, as evidenced by the poll. Even if I do, it may be preferable to living with the survivors (point #2)

There are two ways to phrase the question. This way is phrased here basically demands Blue.

Rephrase it like this and I think there would be more Red pushers:

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. Everyone who presses the red button will live with no risk of death. If you press the blue button, you will die unless more than 50% of people also press the blue button.

Phrasing this way demonstrates that the blue button pressers are creating a risk of death which doesn't really need to be there.

But what about kids? I think adding a (those who are incompetent or underage will have their button pushed by their parent/guardian) parenthetical would change it even more.

Because consider the parent now. If you asked a parent, "Which button would you press for your kid, the one where they will always survive or the one where they might die?" I think most parents would press the red button without a second thought.

Basically this. If you don't immediately perceive that a vote for blue is a vote to be killed, perhaps you deserve that outcome.

This kind of clause defeats the point. The point is everyone gets the question at the same time and must decide instantly. In that context your choices are:

  1. Press Red, guarantee your survival, hope everyone you love also chooses Red or that enough people choose Blue. If Red wins, live with knowing you might have had the defining vote (assume nobody knows the exact split of the final outcome) however unlikely.

  2. Press Blue, either die instantly with a clean conscience or everyone lives.

Why do you assume it's an instant death and not a slow drawn out painful death?

How do you even know the button did anything then? That's just the normal end we all get.

I mean, if five minutes after pressing the button 40% of the worlds population started dying of radiation sickness and over the course of weeks to a couple months everyone slowly died that would be a sign it was the button.

Nobody can agree on all cause excess mortality statistics, and whether its a signal, noise, or potential causes. We already lived this.

Thanos snap people turn to dust or everyone pretends nothing happened.

I think there is a related interesting question here if red merely has a high probability of survival (99%, say), but blue has better/guaranteed odds if you solve the coordination problem.

The phrasing of "everyone is presented with the option to walk into a woodchipper (or not!), but it'll jam if 50%+ of the population all decide to walk into it together" is a similar phrasing that'll probably lead to fewer choosing blue.

This question feels like something out of a Kung Fu drama. The philosopher king knows red is the correct answer but because the people are dumb he must pick blue. End with thousands of swords flying towards him.

I think the difference is, a kid will see that a woodchipper is scary, but a kid might see a blue button as enticing.

I think most people who answer blue are thinking of children (maybe?) and most people who answer red assume children wouldnt' be asked.

most people who answer red assume children wouldnt' be asked.

I think a lot of people who would answer red assume children old enough to understand the question and to press a button would be asked, but that enough children could be convinced by their parents to seriously, not joke around, just press red. Now if you assume babies who don't understand the question and are unable to push the button as a deliberate act are included, then blue is a more reasonable answer.

I think adding a (those who are incompetent or underage will have their button pushed by their parent/guardian) parenthetical would change it even more.

Then I agree with you, but also, I’d say anyone “competent” in this situation (and not suicidal) would press red

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats