[gnfargbl]

As a political post the formulation in the article is crass in the extreme, misrepresenting both the motivations of red and blue voters and also the and the long-term consequences of those parties' policies. There's no progress to be made in a conversation held so close to the surface.

[swed420]

It's very inaccurate/loaded as a political post, but the choice of colors makes the intent fairly obvious.

Politically speaking, in the US where everything is rigged by corporate media and a uniparty of capital interests with red/blue facades (where blue manufactures consent for red every step of the way), the only winning move is to not play.

[krackers]

>the only winning move is to not play

Interestingly there are variants of the question where "no one pushes any button" should also be a "winning condition". The original problem states "if less than 50% of people press the blue button only people who push red survive" which rules this out, but it could be changed to "if greater than 50% of people choose red, then only red pushers survive" (allowing for people to opt to be a non-pusher). Or it could be "if greater than 50% of people choose red, then only blue pushers die" (with the non-pushers also being spared).

I think the latter is more interesting since now there's a moral consequence to voting vs abstaining.

Or you could lean into the political framing. I bet if the vote were retaken with question phrased as "if greater than 50% of people choose red, then people who pressed blue die", you might end up with some switchers who vote purely out of spite. Or maybe that framing makes it feel like voting red has a more significant moral consequence (actively condemning people to death) that the original question doesn't, so it results in more people pressing blue.

You could even add in a penalty if you press a button but are a non-majority, but then that's just the prisoners dilemma.

[pseudalopex]

Your assumptions of Tim Urban were false.[1]

[1] https://x.com/waitbutwhy/status/1519851044666183681