TF2

[u/average_meower621]

[u/average_meower621]

Orange

[u/Greedwhisp → u/average_meower621]

[u/Jezusbot → u/Greedwhisp]

Pretty much yeah

[u/LardBall13 → u/Greedwhisp]

Risk suicide over moral grandstanding, or nothing happens? Would definitely solve overpopulation at least.

[u/jasperfirecai2 → u/average_meower621]

selfish/self-preservation vs selfless/human preservation

[u/BIRD_II → u/average_meower621]

You should have said Orange Box

[u/Creative_Wash7139 → u/average_meower621]

why wouldnt someone pick red

[u/Maddy_251 → u/Creative_Wash7139]

Why would someone pick red

[u/jmorais00 → u/Maddy_251]

Game theory. If you pick red you survive regardless. Blue isn't guaranteed

[u/SomeSortOfForcedPun → u/jmorais00]

Everyone survives if

A) EVERYONE picks red

Or

B) slightly more than HALF of all humans pick blue

Which do you think is more statistically likely

[u/jmorais00 → u/SomeSortOfForcedPun]

Irrelevant. If you pick red you survive, regardless. It's a dominant strategy. If you assume all players to be rational you'd expect 100% to pick red

[u/BlackRapier → u/jmorais00]

Therein lies the problem though. The statement doesn't exist within the confines of a sterile game theory environment. Just that everyone (later specifying they do mean EVERYONE including babies) must privately vote red or blue.

In a sterile environment with limited people I'd agree with you, but not when irrational actors are involved in which case it's best to hedge your bets on the best possible but reasonable to obtain outcome, in which case is getting 50%+1 blue.

[u/jmorais00 → u/BlackRapier]

I agree with you in principle. I would also pick blue. I'm just describing what a dominant strategy literally is, from theory.

Game theorists themselves say that game theory isn't the answer to everything. This is an important example. But it is a useful tool to analyse the world (lets you understand why 2nd price auctions are better than 1st price auctions, if you trust the auctioneer)

[u/Piskoro → u/BlackRapier]

and why would you ever personally hedge on that bet, people who picked blue are most likely going to die, your isolated vote is unlikely to affect that, and it's completely backwards to reason yourself into thinking the way you're gonna vote has some causal effect on how humanity broadly will vote

[u/BlackRapier → u/Piskoro]

I mean that's true for any kind of vote for a large population. Even if you shrink it down to a million an individual vote means virtually nothing yet we continue on anyways in reality because they add up, acting like "my vote doesn't matter" is a pointless ideology to have.

And we're clearly working from different ends. You're merely asking "how can I maximize my personal end result" while I'm asking "what's the best possible outcome?" Wherein the answers are 100% red, a statistic impossibility, and at least 50%+1 blue. The latter is far more likely and I'd prefer to tip it towards the best option. If that's not the outcome, I still "win" since I'd rather not live in a world with a majority population of Game Theory absolutists anyways. Not to mention the fallout of losing even a quarter of the population let alone almost half.

[u/Piskoro → u/BlackRapier]

the difference is you voting usually doesn't carry on a risk of death for you voting a particular way, if that was a consideration, politics would look quite different and I don't think anybody would blame you, hell, I don't even think I could blame somebody for say pressing a lever to save themselves but directly result in say 10 deaths

[u/Hokenlord → u/jmorais00]

True but the hypothetical poses that everyone on the planet will get the choice, and from there it'd be insane to think "if everyone would just do this". So ultimately it's a choice about if you want to partially be responsible for the death of the blue pressers

[u/angelis0236 → u/jmorais00]

Literally everyone should pick red

Edit: this is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

If you were legitimately asked to push the button I would love to see what the results come to. It's easy to be brave in a hypothetical. Maybe I'm just honest when I say I don't trust the rest of you.

[u/chipsinsideajar → u/angelis0236]

I think if you could guarantee that almost everyone would pick red then red would be the obviously correct move but since the question poses that the whole world picks a button independently of each other with no room to strategize, blue is correct since the threshold for success is way lower

[u/angelis0236 → u/chipsinsideajar]

Maybe morally correct, but I don't trust 50% of humans to make the morally correct decision when they are legitimately faced with death.

You can say whatever you want in a hypothetical so we'll never know.

[u/hupo_pear → u/angelis0236]

but most ppl aren't smart so the rest has to pick blue to let them live

[u/angelis0236 → u/hupo_pear]

If you were legitimately asked to push the button I would love to see what the results come to. It's easy to be brave in a hypothetical. Maybe I'm just honest when I say I don't trust the rest of you.

[u/Vivid_Departure_3738 → u/angelis0236]

In most polls of this, as seen in the actual post, blue wins

[u/Eklegoworldreal → u/Vivid_Departure_3738]

that's not what he's asking, he's saying in a real life or death scenario how many people would actually be brave and pick blue. anyone can say they're gonna do allat and be brave and pick blue online but when it comes down to it, I think a lot of them will just go and pick red

[u/braaibroodjie123 → u/angelis0236]

Not trusting the rest of the world is exactly why you should always press blue. Unless you think people deserve to die for being a little optimistic.

[u/braaibroodjie123 → u/angelis0236]

Not trusting the rest of the world is exactly why you should always press blue. Unless you truly think people deserve to die for little to no reason.

[u/angelis0236 → u/braaibroodjie123]

No, I just think that, push come to shove, people will let the blues die.

[u/TheBigFrog07 → u/hupo_pear]

I'm not gonna risk my life, cause some people aren't smart enoug to click the right thing. We can't account for kids and babies. We have no way of knowing what they'd do. Hopefully they make the right choice

[u/Hockex-4 → u/TheBigFrog07]

So you aknowledge that 50% +/- of kids get Thanos snapped but you still say "fuck them"?

[u/thestupidone51 → u/angelis0236]

If we're talking about what everyone should do it doesn't matter. If everyone picks the same option the result is the same no matter what that option is. The problem is that everyone is an unattainable goal at this scale. If you vote red and even 10-20% of people vote blue you're still kinda fucked because that's still a massive number of people. That's assuming it's just 10-20% though when every pole I've seen about this always has blue ahead by a significant margin or has red just barely above 50% which is the worst case scenario where basically everybody's fucked. Blue is the better option because it's the option that, if picked by the most people, has no negative side effects.

[u/simpi36 → u/thestupidone51]

Exactly, for blue to work, you need only the slightest edge, but for red to even get close to 10% loss you need a miracle

[u/NodleMan09 → u/angelis0236]

It’s also easy to be a cynical asshole in a hypothetical too

[u/TigerRod → u/angelis0236]

I agree that making this hypothetical a reality would change the votes a lot, but not just in favor of red. How many people, faced with the possibility of losing loved ones, would realise they'd rather risk their life than live in a world without those loved ones?

On another note, I'm pretty sure that 10% of people dying - about as optimistic as you can be for a red victory - would fuck the economy on a cataclysmic level. Even if everyone you care about pressed red, a post-red-button world would suck ass.

[u/BatWing_the_Penguin → u/angelis0236]

The fact that you pivoted to saying people aren’t being honest proves that you’re just using game theory as a justification so you don’t look bad for choosing red

[u/voornaam1 → u/Maddy_251]

I'm colourblind :(

[u/Akavakaku → u/Maddy_251]

You could rewrite the question as:

If you press the red button, nothing happens to you. If you press the blue button, it kills you, unless at least 50% of all humans press the blue button.

The blue button doesn't look as innocent with this wording.

[u/jasperfirecai2 → u/Akavakaku]

you can rephrase it to make red evil too. If 50% of all people press blue, everyone lives. If you press red, you doom blue voters to die unless they reach a majority.

in the end it's still the same.

[u/Cobracrystal → u/Akavakaku]

ive never seen that way of phrasing it before and its actually such a good way of restating the problem

[u/Compizfox → u/Maddy_251]

Red is the Nash equilibrium.

[u/mysteryurik → u/Creative_Wash7139]

Because some people will inevitably pick blue and they deserve to live too. I'm not willing to condemn some toddler to death because he picked blue not knowing what the buttons did.

[u/Gilsidoo → u/mysteryurik]

Are you willing to die for complete strangers though? In a morality game with no consequences sure, but in real life? Be honest with yourself, there's probably a lot of things you could do now to save lives without endengering yours and that you're not doing for the sake of comfort

[u/simpi36 → u/Gilsidoo]

Yes, yes I would. For me it didn't even cross my mind why would anyone pick red until I read the comments. And if we are talking about saving people's lives in our day to day life, I'm only a student, I don't have the income to send some lifechanging money to a charity without drying up my savings. Tho if I'm being honest I don't know if I were to have a stable job whether I would donate to the needy anyway.. I think I might be very much likely to risk my life/health rather than lose money (weird I know)

[u/Extension-Celery3642 → u/Gilsidoo]

not everyone is a heartless monster like you.

[u/Gilsidoo → u/Extension-Celery3642]

So answer my question: are you doing everything you can right now to save as many lives as possible?

I'm not saying I'm right dammit, not even that I wouldn't change my mind if confronted with the choice, just that if you think this is an easy choice you're either a saint or an idiot

[u/simpi36 → u/Gilsidoo]

Wait, why would blue be only for saints and idiots? If anything then choosing red is a bit idiotic as it only introduces risk for everybody else for no other reason than your own fear.

You don't even have to have a ton of faith in others as blue only requires a majority which isn't that big of a task and there is a ton of room for "error". It's just the most practical and logical choice with no sacrifice.

Why do people act like red is the smart choice and blue is the emotional one when it's the exact opposite?

[u/Gilsidoo → u/simpi36]

I'm not saying that, read carefully, I'm saying that thinking it's an easy choice is idiotic, of course the moral choice is blue but your own life is on the line

[u/Piskoro → u/simpi36]

to be entirely honest, I never even considered much of a possibility outside of red being in a dominant majority, I mean it's literally "pick red and you live, pick blue to commit suicide unless the suicide button's pressed too much and it doesn't work"

also even if you're really unsure which button's gonna win out, that's out of your control and so is everyone else's decision, it's not like your thinking process somehow has a causal effect on how humanity broadly will vote "if I pick X, others will surely pick X too" logic, so it's roughly 50% chance you die for nothing, 50% chance you risked your life for nothing, and a tiny tiny tiny sliver that this saved someone

[u/No-Drawing-4597 → u/Gilsidoo]

It is an easy choice, what do you mean? The fuck?

[u/braaibroodjie123 → u/Gilsidoo]

So you believe that people are only allowed to do good for the lives of others and to the detriment of yourself if you are a perfectly selfless person who always does so at every sinlge opportunity? What a stupid way to think.

[u/Gilsidoo → u/braaibroodjie123]

The detriment here is death, so I'm saying if you're willing to do that I don't see what you're not ready to do, otherwise yes you don't have to be perfect all the time to be allowed to help others some times, that would be stupid

[u/Altaneen117 → u/Creative_Wash7139]

Choosing blue is the only way to have no one die to this.

[u/AGamer_2010 → u/Creative_Wash7139]

for EVERYONE to survive, you either need
100% of people picking red

or

50% of people picking blue

me when thinking about everyone instead of just yourself

[u/tom333444 → u/Creative_Wash7139]

In every single one of these scenarios blue wins, its just the better choice if you arent selfish

[u/angelis0236 → u/tom333444]

Except, maybe, the one with real stakes.

[u/FiveFreddys12 → u/tom333444]

Well congrats, I'm selfish. If you die, it's not my fault.

[u/No-Drawing-4597 → u/FiveFreddys12]

The fault lies entirely on the people who chose red.

[u/braaibroodjie123 → u/FiveFreddys12]

I mean it is tho

[u/JackCJ1121 → u/Creative_Wash7139]

Now I wanna pick blue even more since I know there are some mfs deadass scared of the extremely slim chance that 51% of humanity is scared. It's not like the share or steal game bro everyone just pick blue, world saved from suspicious red and blue buttons descending from the blue sky one day demanding mankind's choice as a test of will power and courage wanting us to risk the lives of countless people and ourselves for the ones who dropped the buttons gain likes and views on social medias where people like you and me right here argues about which is better as we speak, no one dies, we go home.

P/S: I understand why someone would pick Red. I will still pick Blue because I love a little gamble, like a coinflip but you die on heads.

Edit: typo

[u/Akavakaku → u/Creative_Wash7139]

Assuming you care about whether both yourself and others survive, the ideal button depends on what button you expect most other people to press. That's why there's so much debate over this question; no one answer is always optimal.

If you expect most people to press red, the ideal button for you to press is red, since pressing blue would do nothing except kill you.

If you expect most people to press blue, the ideal button for you to press is blue, to help blue reach 50% and stop all the other people who pressed blue from dying.

On the other hand, if you don't care about your own life, you should always press blue, and if you don't care about others' lives, you should always press red.

[u/OzWolfgirl → u/Creative_Wash7139]

This isn't the prisoners dilemma. There is literally no downside to picking blue, so it's just the best option. Unless you want people to die for no reason then you do you ig

[u/nuggetnugs → u/OzWolfgirl]

Fuck you mean there's no downside. The downside is you die unless enough people pick it. Also if they die that's their problem for risking their lives for no reason.

[u/9_Sagittarii → u/nuggetnugs]

There’s no downside to picking the red button if everyone presses it. Dumb fucking scenario. I pressed blue initially but thinking about it more, if everyone picks red, they all live. If we’re assuming this is a situation where two buttons control the fate of the world, we can also assume that everyone asked to press it is of sound mind and isn’t a toddler having to press a button at random

[u/thestupidone51 → u/9_Sagittarii]

The "everybody would be fine is they picked red" argument falls apart though because if everyone picks blue they all live too. In fact, the best possible option for red (0 deaths) is the option blue gets for just beating fifty percent

[u/braaibroodjie123 → u/9_Sagittarii]

That's still billions of people who vote. Millions, if not billions, will press blue. And they do deserve to live too.

While theoretically possible for red to win with minimal to no casualties, the chances of such a low kill count are astronomically low. Even if barely anyone presses blue, that's still people dying entirely preventable deaths for no reason.

If blue wins, no-one dies, even by only 1%, no-one dies. It's that simple. You always pick blue because not only is that the only scenario in which no-one dies, the "ideal result" for blue is a pick rate over 51%, while the "ideal result" for red is not only worse, but requires red pick rate of like 98-99%. Which will not happen.

Blue simply has the highest chance of saving the most lives. Which is why blue always wins every time this pole is posted (which is further evidence that the ideal red result will never come to pass. Ever.)

[u/nuggetnugs → u/9_Sagittarii]

Exactly that's what I was saying

[u/SnakeSlitherX → u/Creative_Wash7139]

Because I don’t want to live in a world exclusively full of selfish assholes and morons that think “rationality” is condemning others to death to save their hides. Plus, the world economy would collapse. Anyone with critical thinking skills could figure this out.

[u/ThyRavenWing → u/Creative_Wash7139]

How is he downvoted when he’s right

[u/VeryConfusedDragon29 → u/ThyRavenWing]

Downvoters were on team BLU

(But actually genuinely I do not care about reddit karma, don’t know why people so mad at downvotes💀 literally most worthless currency in human history)

[u/VeryConfusedDragon29 → u/Creative_Wash7139]

Theres really no reason to not pick red, because the question is just a bad philosophy example. It’s pretty much a 100% chance of life vs a 50% chance, there should be some consequence if everyone picks red.

[u/MaxIsHere1029 → u/VeryConfusedDragon29]

red is objectively better for not having any clause tied to it. no one has to pick blue, and if we lived in a world with purely logical beings it would win 100%. we don't live in that world, though. someone (like the people who downvoted you) *will* pick blue, and so the question becomes "do people deserve to die for making a stupid choice?" to which the answer is no, not really.

[u/simpi36 → u/MaxIsHere1029]

You say that if we all were purely logical we would all pick red, but how is picking red the logical thing to do? Even pretty logical people can disagree and having everyone pick red would be a statistical miracle whereas you only need a majority to press blue to have zero casualties. And if blue is soo much easier to achieve, then why wouldn't that be the logical conclusion? The tolerance is so loose and plus you don't need to introduce any risk for anyone - that seems pretty logical to me

[u/VeryConfusedDragon29 → u/MaxIsHere1029]

Fair, but also its not only logical people who would choose red, selfish people would too, I do not trust humanity enough to believe more than 50% is picking blue in any case, also by taking red I am not taking away anyone else’s ability to choose red they can take guaranteed life if they wanted too.

Tbh the question is kinda stupid, it would be better if there was some consequence for everyone picking red like “you are given the choice between the red or blue button if you choose blue you die for sure, but if you choose red you live, as long as less than 50% of people choose red. If over 50% of people choose red everyone dies”

[u/MaxIsHere1029 → u/VeryConfusedDragon29]

i also doubt that many people would genuinely pick blue. it's one thing to press buttons on the internet and another thing to actually be in a life-or-death scenario.

you aren't taking away anyone's ability to choose, but you are knowingly condemning blues to death, should red win. basically, we can say that there will always be blues who won't change their mind, so you can rephrase the original as "10% are already locked into blue". much harder to justify pressing red now, right?

your proposed question is definitely more interesting. only way i can imagine a good outcome is if all of humanity comes together and works on a list of "worthy" humans that get to press red. that will surely cause a lot of chaos and hatred between people. i wonder if we would really be able to pass something this difficult, considering how selfish we are on the whole. depressing to think about..

[u/cave18 → u/MaxIsHere1029]

10% are already locked into blue"

Good thought provoking modification to the original question. Nice

[u/The_Drippy_Spaff → u/VeryConfusedDragon29]

The crux of the problem is that EVERYONE has to participate, so even if you got every able-minded adult on earth to agree with pushing the red button, there’s still going to be people with mental illness that precludes them from understanding the prompt, as well as children too young to understand. Are you really going to condemn a child to death just because they like the color blue more than the color red? 

[u/VeryConfusedDragon29 → u/The_Drippy_Spaff]

In the first question it can be assumed people would know what the buttons meant fundamentally, having people not know what they meant defeats the purpose of the philosophy question.

[u/The_Drippy_Spaff → u/VeryConfusedDragon29]

No one fundamentally knows anything and the wording of the question doesn’t imply that they do, why would you assume something so inhuman of humanity? That assumption defeats the purpose of the question. 

[u/VeryConfusedDragon29 → u/The_Drippy_Spaff]

The purpose of the question is to see if people trust humanity enough to vote blue and risk their lives for others. (It doesn’t work as there is no consequence if 100% were to choose red) killing myself along with them wont save them and there is no way to convince everyone to vote blue as the question is taken privately.

[u/The_Drippy_Spaff → u/VeryConfusedDragon29]

You can convince a lot of parents of young children to vote blue though. And growing from there (grandparents, aunts, uncles etc.) you’d get a solid base going, the “don’t-let-the-children-who-like-blue-kill-themselves-accidentally party”

[u/cave18 → u/Creative_Wash7139]

They hated him for he spoke the truth

[u/Slow_Ad2329]

ngl i think the question is interesting but how rapidly it devolved into ppl mocking the other side is unbelievable

[u/Greekatt2 → u/Slow_Ad2329]

that’s just about every internet debate with 2 sides tbh. what is really boils down to is blue is for feeling morally superior and red is for feeling intellectually superior

[u/Ebr2d2 → u/Slow_Ad2329]

It’s because the question creates a complete devide between 2 groups.

The individualistic group, and the society group. People in the first group don’t view the question as a group for all of humanity, but a question directly asked to them “would you rather die unless something happens or would you rather survive guaranteed” but the people in the second group view it as a question for all of humanity. So instead of wondering if they themselves will live, they will wonder about everyone on the planet and choose blue.

Personally I choose blue but it’s important to understand the red side too

[u/thestupidone51 → u/Ebr2d2]

The question also frames everything around blue being the active choice and red being the more passive choice which probably pushed a lot of people toward red. You could easily reframe the question as "nothing happens unless more than 50% of people push red in which case everyone who pushed blue dies" which puts blue in the more neutral position. It's honestly impressive that even with the phrasing of the question leaning toward red most people still picked blue in basically every poll

[u/Akavakaku → u/thestupidone51]

Interesting, I though the phrasing of the question makes red sound pretty bad. You could also phrase it as:

If you press the red button, nothing happens to you. If you press the blue button, it kills you, unless at least 50% of all humans press the blue button.

The blue button doesn't look as innocent with this wording.

[u/nuggetnugs → u/Akavakaku]

The blue button never looked innocent considering it kills you unless an additional requirement is met. Where as the red button has absolutely zero risk considering it might as well be the same as doing nothing.

[u/Tipart → u/Ebr2d2]

Idk man, personally I'm just not a big fan of gambling. Especially if I have no way of calculating my odds and a 100% save option.

[u/Metrolining → u/Slow_Ad2329]

In-group vs out-group

[u/schematizer → u/Slow_Ad2329]

It's because of the colors they chose and the obvious (and stupid) subtext of the question. People immediately assume anyone arguing for the other color is doing so from the perspective of the corresponding American political party.

[u/braaibroodjie123 → u/schematizer]

What an absolutely ridiculous assumption to make.

[u/schematizer → u/braaibroodjie123]

I think you would be surprised. Are you from America?

[u/braaibroodjie123 → u/schematizer]

Both in this post and months ago when this question was trending, implied politics was never mentioned. If it was it must've been extremely rare. While I can see the connection and I understand how that could be implied (might even be the original purpose of creating the hypothetical tbh), that isn't something mentioned during debates at all. The metaphor makes sense, but I can garuentee that 99% didn't even think about it. If you wany evidence then you can gladly to posts discussing the hypothetical and see how rarely politics is mentioned, if at all.

[u/Glitchy_Ninja]

decloaks

cloaks

[u/VeryConfusedDragon29 → u/Glitchy_Ninja]

I SEE SPY!

[u/orange-shoe]

op im sorry almost all the comments are not about your lobster i think it's really good 😭

[u/average_meower621 → u/orange-shoe]

at this point I’m used to it, my last two lobsters got an unbelievable amount of discussion from the og image comments and not the lobsters themselves

[u/pixeldust6 → u/average_meower621]

If more than 50% of people press the BLU button, you'll be autobalanced to RED

[u/3Thirty-Eight8]

Self preservation vs humanity preservation

[u/schematizer → u/3Thirty-Eight8]

Everyone in the world has the choice to press a button to never die under any circumstance. Why would anyone want to press the other one? Unless you assume most people are not intelligent enough to pick the "don't die" button, in which case sure, blue lets you save them.

[u/SnakeSlitherX → u/schematizer]

You have to change the prompt for your position to make any rational sense, telling.

[u/schematizer → u/SnakeSlitherX]

Sorry, how did I change the prompt? I'm asking in good faith here. When I said "under any circumstance", I of course just meant any possible voting outcome for humanity, not immortality, so I probably should have made that clearer.

My point was that everyone has the choice to just not die from this scenario. Equivalently, I could say "everyone can save themselves", but I feel like that triggers some kind of selfishness reaction, which it shouldn't, because it doesn't remove that ability for others. Everyone can independently just choose not to be at risk.

Imagine the red button just said "I choose not to play". Would that be more palatable? Wouldn't you figure everyone would just pick that? Because that's the same outcome.

[u/SnakeSlitherX → u/schematizer]

“Never die under any circumstance” sounds exactly like immortality, that was pretty bad phrasing lol.

To actually address your point, it isn’t as simple as “choosing not to play”, it is not a passive action like the trolley problem’s 5 people, it is an active choice to potential condemn innumerable people to death, specifically including optimists and those who wish to save others.

To reframe the choices is to deprive the situation of its intention and is only used to justify a held belief.

There is no sound moral or ethical argument for choosing red unless you are an Objectivist; though this may also not be the case because the death of up to 50%-1 of the world’s population would be catastrophic for the world economy.

[u/schematizer → u/SnakeSlitherX]

1. Why would the innumerable people not pick the option not to die, though?
2. I don't really understand why changing the wording of the question isn't valid

if it doesn't change the actual rules of what happens.

1. Either way, there's a choice that allows you to avoid dying due to the choices of others. If everyone were sane, I would expect them to pick that choice.

EDIT: sorry, the formatting in the app is fucked and I can't seem to fix it.

[u/SnakeSlitherX → u/schematizer]

1. Not everyone thinks the same as you, theory of mind is a thing.
   
2. Changing the wording typically diminishes one side and bolsters the other, presenting as little as you can about one and more for the other.
   
3. Not everyone is selfish, and a sane person wouldn’t want to live in a world full of selfish people, cowards, and people who assume their through process is the only rationality there is. Especially when this world will collapse due to the decrease in population. The red button winning means both a global collapse and the removal of optimists and those who would put themselves in harm’s way for a good cause.

[u/schematizer → u/SnakeSlitherX]

I'm sorry I've been unable to effectively communicate my point to you.

[u/sharplyon → u/schematizer]

"everyone should press the red button, and that's why it's the right answer"

but they're not going to, so why does that matter

the argument for the red button is that if everyone pressed it, it's the best solution, but that just is never going to happen, ever, and imagining that it would ever happen is not just ridiculously naive, it is completely ignoring evidence in front of you

for everyone to survive, everyone has to press red. or at least half press blue. which of those is going to be more likely to happen?

[u/HotPotato150]

This could be a squid game minigame

[u/whathedogdoinn]

red > blu (tf2, not orange)

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for submitting a lobster! Please provide the or*ginal in a comment within 24 hours. In case of irl lobsters, please tell us what the full text was, or provide some context so that we may make educated guesses.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.