The arguments made about wanting to protect the children/babies and those with cognitive impairments are well meaning, but I think misguided. The bottom line is that the world has been put in a shit situation and you can't fix it. Encouraging blue is encouraging an increase in the likelihood that all the truly nice and wonderful people that would would actually follow through on a blue vote for altruistic reasons wind up dead. And that doesn't seem like an altruistic position? It seems more like self-martyring. Well meaning, but actually making the likelihood of a bad outcome worse.

▲

adverbly an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You think it's easier to convince everyone to pick red than 51% of people to pick blue?

If you think it's possible to convince everyone to vote red then it's certainly possible to do the same for blue given how much lower the threshold is!

This is absolutely possible and realistic.

Imagine a scenario where public polls were taken and it showed 95% support for blue? Would you still be out here calling 95% of people martyrs? Blue is an absolutely winnable propoganda game!

▲

gpm 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You literally can fix it, you just need at least half the word to press blue to fix it.

▲

pessimizer 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You literally can't fix it, you need half the world's help to do it.

Things that I need billions of people's help for are on the top of the list of things that I literally can't do.

▲

gpm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

By this logic I also can't fly across the ocean in a modern airplane, but I obviously can.

We can get together and do great things. Whether that's science and industry or simply not murdering everyone who doesn't press red.

▲

astrocat 7 hours ago | parent [-]

gpm's point is that it's a collective action issue. And even if one individual can't fix is, we can with a movement. And we SHOULD care about things like this. We're fairly familiar with these: big problem, only solved if enough people do a thing. But in general, almost all collective action problems we face are ones where either:

a. every incremental actor improves the overall picture with their individual choice (however small, even if it takes a threshold to be "solved": think, recycling, vaccines) b. every individual actor actor's choice has no _direct_ impact until some threshold is met (maybe voting?)

THIS situation, however is very different: every individual choice for blue makes things WORSE up until the threshold is met. And not just a little, but a LOT worse. That's not normal collective action territory, so we shouldn't be assuming the same kind of reasoning. The stakes of missing the threshold are not "aw shucks" or "keep trying, there's more chances later!" The stakes of missing the threshold are "everyone who cares about the threshold is dead."

I can't think of anything IRL that falls into this category?

	▲	gpm 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I can't think of anything IRL that falls into this category? I suppose: People on one half of a standoff standing down when the other side will also stand down if everyone on the first half does. Not exactly a common problem to see outside of movies... but in principle it follows a common pattern. An individual lowering their guard is bad (if it ends up in a fight), but if everyone lowers their guard we get to avoid the fight.

▲

7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]