Myce

So there was a thought experiment going on at Twitter that goes as follows:

Everyone in the world is given two buttons, one they can press: red and blue. If you press red, you live. If you press blue, you'll die unless more than 50% press blue. then everyone lives. The thought experiment melds a lot of topics together, from altruism to trust in people.

And to my shame: I would have choose red. Simply because I didn't pay it much mind and I was scared that the divisions of the day would make people feel scared and vote to help themselves. I technically didn't vote but that was out of shame for myself.

But hey, turns out my pessimism was wrong. Very wrong. The poll ended with a 42/58 spilt between red/blue. For those who don't get poll percentages, this is more like an 8% difference than a 16% difference since the people voting were likely the types to be compelled to vote on these kinds of polls. Never been more glad to have egg on my face.

...Wish I could say the same about anyone else who voted like me.

The red voters are having a site wide meltdown, screaming about how the poll was wrong, that people who voted blue are just virtue signalers, how red is actually the most moral option. It's pathetic.

Maybe in the original poll, you could argue that and I wouldn't disparage anyone for voting red since, like me, they could be scared and uncertain. Not afterwards. It's confirmed now that blue will win. All this shit about virtue signaling, 'red is actually individualist and high trust', that fucking heat map they're using wrong: it's all cope. They're either in shock that their deeply held beliefs were proven wrong or they're scrambling to save their egos.

Because my god, how are you not happy to be proven wrong in this scenario?

P.S. I know people will try to make slight difference in the Mr Beast poll to say red is the true winner but the whole point is that the OG poll didn't have a previous outcome so you voted in isolation. Now you have a punch of people flooding the poll to affirm their views now.

So there was a thought experiment going on at Twitter that goes as follows:

Everyone in the world is given two buttons, one they can press: red and blue. If you press red, you live. If you press blue, you'll die unless more than 50% press blue. then everyone lives. The thought experiment melds a lot of topics together, from altruism to trust in people.

And to my shame: I would have choose red. Simply because I didn't pay it much mind and I was scared that the divisions of the day would make people feel scared and vote to help themselves. I technically didn't vote but that was out of shame for myself.

But hey, turns out my pessimism was wrong. Very wrong. The poll ended with a 42/58 spilt between red/blue. For those who don't get poll percentages, this is more like an 8% difference than a 16% difference since the people voting were likely the types to be compelled to vote on these kinds of polls. Never been more glad to have egg on my face.

...Wish I could say the same about anyone else who voted like me.

The red voters are having a site wide meltdown, screaming about how the poll was wrong, that people who voted blue are just virtue signalers, how red is actually the most moral option. It's pathetic.

Maybe in the original poll, you could argue that and I wouldn't disparage anyone for voting red since, like me, they could be scared and uncertain. Not afterwards. It's confirmed now that blue will win. All this shit about virtue signaling, 'red is actually individualist and high trust', that fucking heat map they're using wrong: it's all cope. They're either in shock that their deeply held beliefs were proven wrong or they're scrambling to save their egos.

Because my god, how are you not happy to be proven wrong in this scenario?

P.S. I know people will try to make slight difference in the Mr Beast poll to say red is the true winner but the whole point is that the OG poll didn't have a previous outcome so you voted in isolation. Now you have a punch of people flooding the poll to affirm their views now.

If someone says something that you know to be wrong, say something. Push back on it. Iran didn't start this war. They haven't been at war with the US for forty seven years. The US didn't have to support Israel's strikes with this kind of escalation (we haven't in the past, in fact Trump hasn't in the past). The Iranian people are not looking to the US as liberators. The Strait of Hormuz was always going to be used tactically in this way, it is absurd to suggest that the Iran would open it because it is the single best method of leverage they have to resist annihilation from a superpower. Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Saying that an entire culture will be destroyed is genocidal.

There is no moral reason for the US to do this, the reasons that the US is doing this are oil and to destabilize the region. Hubris, cruelty, and a vile old man who wants to give himself a hero's legacy play a part as well.

You should be saying out loud to the people around you "This war is unjust, unnecessary, and cruel, and every reason our leaders are giving us to tell us why we're doing it is a lie."

There is no justification for bombing water and power infrastructure for ninety million people; that will kill thousands of civilians and is a war crime.

Iran was bombed while they were negotiating with the countries that bombed them; they were willing to make the agreements requested by the US and Israel before they were bombed.

The Strait was open in February. If the US and Israel hadn't attacked Iran there would have been no reason for Iran to close it.