Well, that is one way to rationalize, as I guess there is an infinite number of ways to do so.

The point remains, only one singular choice guarantees your own safety. And another has a Chance of death. Take the stupid choice because you think everyone else is also stupid? Thats your choice.

▲

empthought 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn’t guarantee my safety, though. It puts me in a world where the only people left were so afraid of dying that they opted into a completely avoidable mass murder.

▲

bot403 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It may not have been completely avoidable though. What if the maximum number of people who would ever vote for blue is 30%

If that's the case then it's truly impossible to save them.

Your assumption is there is more than 50% of people who will vote blue or could be convinced to do so.

It's a terrifying thought that there could be such a deficit of empathetic people. But without any evidence you're just hoping based on your own beliefs that over 50% believe in blue like you do.

What if I'm not afraid of dying. But I'm just not willing to throw my life away unless there's decent evidence it could succeed and we could get above 50%

▲

empthought 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Then I’d say you either really deserve the world you get when red wins, or you don’t really deserve the world you get when blue wins.

▲

card_zero 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I notice that this thing you and others call empathy doesn't extend to the outgroup: if anybody doesn't subscribe to it, fuck 'em, is the general sentiment.

▲

empthought 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I have no idea what you are referring to. This isn’t a question of ingroup or outgroup.

▲

card_zero 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No idea! Well, I must assume good faith and believe you. To me it looks like you're labelling everybody you dislike as "probably a psychopath, best disposed of". I suppose that's consistent with saying they're not the outgroup, it's just a practical necessity or something.

In this instance of course what you're proposing is very mild: you think they should suffer one another's company - which you imagine would be a terrible experience. Unless you further imagine that they'd like it? But my impression was that you thought they'd have a bad time, and since they're your non-compassionate outgroup, you very compassionately don't care.

	▲	empthought an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You read a bunch of things into what I wrote that simply are not there. I like plenty of people who would press the red button without hesitation. Their decision is their decision and my decision is mine. Might they “have a bad time?” Maybe. Maybe not. I’m certain I would have a terrible time, if I joined them in the majority.