site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   2649 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)

Something something time preference.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where red won. Sociologically it would be an interesting question of how a society which thanos snapped itself would cope. Rugged individualism? "They were stupid and weak for picking blue, we're the smart ones."?

I think that kind of attitude is shortsighted.

Consider that you're currently living in a world where red all but won (we are ruled by massive nation-states and corporations that live according to the principle of preserving themselves first and promote people who do that for them), and the percentage of those really willing to take major risks for others is quite low when put to a real test. Conversely, there must be many decent people who would vote red yet aren't complete insufferable psychopaths and egoists (if only because ~45% of voters on a major twitter poll probably aren't completely insufferable).

If you hold people to the standard of them being willing to risk their own life to save yours, you'll likely find yourself disappointed. (Not just risk, in fact - risk implies some measure of the risker's skill and agency mattering - but gamble.)

I think people are acting more selfless than they really would be, and ofc voting was influenced by surrounding discourse, and of course the scenario is that red won, so some <50% of the population picked blue and died. The plurality of less-selfish people who voted blue, who then get thanos-snapped, were probably load bearing to some degree. I think there are a lot of negative externalities to red winning that red-pressers aren't considering.

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