Jake

apologetically me

[Jake @jake_glover]

@ethan648 @tonkertom @Jucktqel You could be right, I never claimed the poll *proved* otherwise, but a poll of hundreds of thousands of people is significantly more compelling to me than your personal intuition. And it’s certainly a *better* indicator of the outcome than “what does 🪤 think people will do?”

[Jake @jake_glover]

@ethan648 @tonkertom @Jucktqel It is a better indicator of the outcome of *this* specific scenario than *your* prediction, even if your basing it on “human history”, which I still don’t think definitely points in either direction. We could exchange historical anecdotes in favor of both sides until we die.

[Jake @jake_glover]

@ethan648 @tonkertom @Jucktqel It also shows extraordinary examples of coordination and sacrifice to avoid tragedy. “Human history” is incredibly broad and varied, it really isn’t solid proof of any particular outcome in this scenario. The polls, while flawed, are better indicators than your take on history.

[Jake @jake_glover]

@Darthshadow25 @WokeFDR It’s much smarter to ignore it entirely and assert your own intuition as obviously correct, right? Where is the “good data” that supports your claim?

[Jake @jake_glover]

@ethan648 @tonkertom @Jucktqel I didn’t say everyone would, I said billions would. There is infinitely more evidence that blue would get >50% than there is red would get 100%. Fwiw I know some would defect and I’m not sure what would win, but it seems illogical to predict a red landslide imo

[Jake @jake_glover]

@modernhealth25 @thetweeteregg @AlastairGrayson @justalexoki Because billions of people dying would be bad even if I wasn’t one of them. Even it didn’t lead to apocalypse, it would still be the most tragic event in human history. It is avoidable with cooperation so I would try and avoid it. I like humans 🤷‍♂️

[Jake @jake_glover]

@blaugranafrogs @Jucktqel @tonkertom How convenient that when every poll shows your intuition to be incorrect you just get to deem them irrelevant. “My instincts about how strangers will behave are far more informed than their own” is just insane hubris. How about you show some evidence for your claim now?

[Jake @jake_glover]

@tonkertom @Jucktqel You are highly over-valuing your own intuition. There is no evidence whatsoever that everyone would “just vote red” were it real, but there is highly compelling evidence that billions would vote blue. Reject if you if you like, but admit that you’re engaging in pure speculation.

[Jake @jake_glover]

@Cerealbox0 @Staymares @waitbutwhy Lmao you can’t be serious. The mental gymnastics you’re doing to avoid engaging with the moral premise of this question are crazy. If you think that’s a reasonable framing of the issue, more power to you

[Jake @jake_glover]

@thetweeteregg @AlastairGrayson @justalexoki That’s the best strategy to save yourself and anyone you can successfully influence, but it’s an objectively terrible strategy for saving *everyone* which again is worth a shot imo. It could only work by failing (blue winning despite you and your fellow voters)

[Jake @jake_glover]

@Staymares @Cerealbox0 @waitbutwhy Very true, they would be the most guilty by a wide margin. But I don’t think red pushers would be entirely incidental to the outcome if red wins. That’s what makes it an interesting question imo

[Jake @jake_glover]

@thetweeteregg @AlastairGrayson @justalexoki Neither are guaranteed to save everyone, but only one can. Again, I think saving everyone is good and worth a shot

[Jake @jake_glover]

@modernhealth25 @thetweeteregg @AlastairGrayson @justalexoki That’s a false equivalence, this scenario requires no ongoing maintenance or gradual change. It’s a potential mass casualty that can be avoided by coordination and cooperation, that’s the premise of the question

[Jake @jake_glover]

@thetweeteregg @AlastairGrayson @justalexoki Okay that’s fine, but I think saving everyone would be good and worth a try personally

[Jake @jake_glover]

@thetweeteregg @AlastairGrayson @justalexoki “Everybody just x” is a terrible strategy to accomplish anything and this is just an attempt to reject the moral premise of the question. The best strategy for saving *everyone* is advocating for blue. 51% is difficult to achieve, but 100% is impossible

[Jake @jake_glover]

@fallenFisherman @justalexoki Thank you! Picking red is genuinely defensible, but they don’t want to admit that the defense is solely self-interest which is far less honorable than the defense of blue. Make whatever choice you want, just be honest with yourself about why you’re doing it

[Jake @jake_glover]

@Staymares @Cerealbox0 @waitbutwhy Again that’s more than understandable, but I would argue that they pushed the “don’t implicate me in the largest mass casualty ever” button and you need to reframe it as the “put me on the chopping block” button in order to be okay with not pushing it

[Jake @jake_glover]

@AriDavidPaul @Jobu_2 Out of the countless possible outcomes, there is only 1 where red wins and no one dies, but every time blue wins no one dies. Getting 51% of people to something is a herculean task no doubt, but 100% is impossible

[Jake @jake_glover]

@pvllss @waitbutwhy It is not equivalent at all. Not getting $10M is not remotely the same as dying. I can live with causing someone to keep the same life they have now, I can’t live with taking it from them.

[Jake @jake_glover]

@solidmetalnick @WomanDefiner “There is no downside to as much as 49% of the population dying”