top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 46 points 5 months ago (6 children)

The ultra rich:

I'd do it for $10!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 5 months ago

    The bourgeoisie already does that offer, the proletariat can't choose it.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (22 children)

    This is an old twilight zone episode. A women is given a box with one button on it and told to press it is she wants the money, but someone she doesn’t even know will die.

    She decides the push the button, and then someone comes to collect the button device, saying that it will now be reset and taken to someone else now for the same challenge. Some random person on earth. Implying that she will be the next to die if the button gets pushed.

    Frankly not a bad system. Slowly cleanses the selfish from the earth.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    Was the lady told what would happen if she pressed the button?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    Yes it was clear that someone somewhere in the world “who you don’t even know” would die. The characters have a debate:

    “Maybe it’ll be just some Chinese peasant.”

    “What if it’s someone’s newborn baby!”

    More than anything I’m shocked at the casual dismissal of the Chinese peasant. WTF?

    Anyway at the very end of the show the same guy who brought them this dilemma comes to collect the device and he very pointedly uses the same language to say “now it will go to someone new that you don’t even know.”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone)

    Yes, that somewhere in the world, someone she doesnt know will die.

    When Mr. Steward returns to collect the button box after the button is pressed, the lady asks what happens to the box next. She is told it will go to someone else with the same offer, with assurances that the new recipient will not know who she is. As the previous commenter said, the wording deeply implies she would be the certain "someone" targeted by the next button press.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    But what would happen if she didn't press it? Would the button be offered to someone else again? In that case, she would be targeted regardless of her choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That's not revealed, but I would think it just targets the last person who pushed the button. If you don't, you succeed the test and get skipped. .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The dilemma is "would you push a button for money" not "would you push a button knowing what it did for money"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    "Would you push a button for money", on its own, is barely a dilemma. If you've been given no good reason not to press it then you don't have a reason not to press it. I'd be curious to see this Twilight Zone episode because, if it really is presented that way to her, then it's not her morals that are comprimised and instead that of whoever distributed that button.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    She's told that someone on earth would die and she doesn't know them. The twist is that while it's implied that it's a random person, it's revealed at the end that it's the last person to press the button.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    There's this cool new thing where you can search for stuff on the Internet. You should check it out. To answer your question, yes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    She got $20,000 if I'm not mistaken. In '80s money.

    Also it was originally meant to kill her husband. They changed it for the show.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    $200,000 - which if you consider that it was 1980s money, makes Mr. Beast’s $10,000 look very small.

    By “originally meant to” I think you are referring to the short story it was based on ending that way.

    A despondent Norma asks the stranger why her husband was the one who was killed. The stranger replies, "Do you really think you knew your husband?" strongly disapproved of the Twilight Zone version, especially the new ending

    Frankly I find the twilight zone ending more chilling and suspenseful. The “do you think you really knew your husband” line is kinda sad trombone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I’m assuming the device gets passed on regardless if the button is pressed. If that’s the case, does it have any correlation to selfishness getting punished? Me living or dying has to do with the NEXT person being selfish, not whether I was selfish or not. Unless I’m missing something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    I believe the idea is that if you push the button, it goes on to someone else. If they DON’T push the button, they get skipped. It goes to someone else besides them. And so on, until SOMEONE does push the button. And at that point, the last person who pushed the button gets iced.

    And so in that way, every person who pushes the button inevitably gets killed, removing selfish people from the world while morally upright people get passed over.

    This isn’t detailed in the episode, it’s just my mind filling in between the lines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I'm an 80s kid but I skipped the old Twilight episodes ... so I'm trying to darnest to catch up on them and I'm learning how awesome the ideas were even if the presentation is dated.

    Just a random segue ...

    I sound naive but I didn't realize that Rod Sterling wanted to tell stories about social issues -- racism and stuff but the networks wouldn't let him. If he wanted to tell a story about an alien or an invader then the networks would let it pass through. So it was a way for him to tell harder stories to the general public.

    I think that's a lot of sci-fi like Invasion of the Body Snatcher and such but I just never thought about it deeply enough.

    There's the treehouse of horror episode by the Simpsons where Bart is omnipotent and I knew it was based on something but I only recently learned it from: "It's a Good Life" which is a book and a Twilight Zone episode. I only watched the parody up until this year and I just thought it was a fun concept. Then I watched the original and a breakdown and it was a take on totalitarian regimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago

    No.

    Also, fuck Mr. Beast. A billionaire proposing yet another Trolley Problem for amusement and engagement bait.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Jokes aside, no. I don't think I'd do it for $100 million. I seriously don't.

    The justifications y'all are providing don't work for me. Maybe it's because I have a son, and I can imagine he would be the one to die, then I remember everyone is the child of someone, or the friend, etc.

    I will not be the knowing cause of the death of some random person just for money. You guys can have it. No, thank you.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    You could save way more than 1 life with $100M. Malaria nets save on average one life for every $3k donated. Child deworming doesn't save a life per se, but you can stop a child from being permanently disabled for ~$500.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Sacrificing a person in order to help a number of people survive for a month or a year is still a terribly bad calculation if you ask me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Im the same way. If someone gave me a gun and gave me a choice to shoot myself or a stranger, I would shoot myself.

    Mostly because I believe what we do matters. Many dont.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    $100 million brings you into a different philosophical debate. $100 million is more than enough that you could use the money to save at least a few lives

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    Can I only use it once?

  • source
  • That is happening everyday, done by thousands of people who could have stopped those deaths readily. Just they are obsessed with more wealth.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    You pay taxes in the US, you've already paid for the random death of people.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    paid, not been paid - that's a difference, and also not voluntarily. Arguably, those who don't pay taxes (i.e. took many times 10000) are causing the deaths of millions by their lobbying to become richer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I'll take 0,01 if it ensures that the person who dies is a billionaire

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Yes. In fact I'll keep at it until Mr Beast is the one who drops dead. It's not about the money, but the principle of the thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    Does the name of that random person rhyme with "rump" or "rootin" ?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    if anyone presses the button and I die I'm haunting your stupid ass forever

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    He’d do anything for attention, so I could see this video happening in future if he felt that social media would support him

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago*

    I'd press it at least 500 times. Maybe more, you need to make sure it works and one random death isn't going to make the news. So gotta put in work and press it as many times in one instance. And, I get paid at the end?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    It's a life, how much could it cost. $10,000?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    I’m not sure I can answer that yet.

    So what I’d suggest is sending me 10k and i’ll see if I take. However I’d also suggest we do multiple runs just to confirm consistency. I hear 100 times is a good number for checking consistencies.

  • source
  • [+] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago
    [–] 68 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (11 children)

    About 2 people are dying every second regardless, so if i don't take the money, 2 people die.

    Im actually saving a life by briefly capping the death rare at 1.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Sorry, but that's not how it works. 3 people die that instant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I would think you random death would just be added to the baseline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    That's the premise of the Twilight Zone episode "Button, Button". After she pressed it, the man making the deal said he'd go to "a random person on Earth" offering the same to them (implying that the person being killed will be the one who pushed the button earlier in the chain)

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    the only way i'm ever pushing a stupid ass button like that is if hunger gets solved or manufactured housing scarcity disappears, and i'm the only one that dies.

    tf is wrong with some of you?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    Host: For $10000, push this button and some random person dies.

    Me: Could I take less to get a billionaire?

    Host: Sure. $5000.

    Me: Make it painful?

    Host: [visible discomfort] Uhh, $1000.

    Me: The Brazen Bull?

    Host: Jesus… You get nothing.

    Me:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    In my current situation (ok economically but not without worries), wouldn't fucking take a million, nor a billion for that matter. It is not like all my consumption habits are %100 devoid of someone else's suffering or maybe even death, indirectly. But having a vague idea about bad effects of consumption habits vs knowing it will be a direct cause of death is two completely different things imo. On the otherhand if my life or a loved one's life depends on that money, that is a harder question and I don't think I can really know the answer without going through it and deciding.

    Ok now lets do billionaires but 100mil and ten thousand people in a far away country dies.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I think a billion id take because you can save thousands and thousands of people

    I could live with that choice. Maybe in the end I’d feel so guilty that I wouldn’t even use the money for myself at all.

    Which is an interesting debate as well. How does your answer change if you can’t use that money for you or known people at all, and only “for good”. Do you feel less guilty?

    As another commenter said it’s just a different version of the trolley problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    Yeah I thought about that but you can not trade one person's life for a thousand others unless that person willingly participates.

    By logic this should also extend to me and my loved ones but ofcourse when it is someone closer to you whose life may be saved, you can probably no longer act objectively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t think that’s entirely true

    Everyday society chooses to save a persons life and not another’s

    Not explicitly but not so indirectly either

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Yeah but I think there is a difference between the two, it is a more direct consequence of your decision only, not society on a whole. I would imagine shared guilt of indirect results is much lighter on the psychology than a direct and visible consequence of what comes out of one's mouth. There is ofcourse alot of grey region scenarios in between (like you won't know who dies, or death will be of natural causes but immediate etc).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    This is the trolley problem on steroids tbh. I have $10.000 in my savings. I could use them to save a whole lot more than one life! Yet I don’t. At face value this is no different from accepting the money and a rando kicks the bucket.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    No.

    Counter proposition: for every €10 I pay, a random fascist dies. I'm willing to spend all my money, and am willing to take gifts from others to continue paying more amounts of €10 for as long as I have any. I'll even spend €100 to prioritize highly influential fascists first.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    That sums up the IQ of Mrbeast fanbase right there, peak irony.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This is basically what we living in developed countries are all doing every day.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    RIP 750,000 random strangers.

  • source
  • Every time I pet my cat, a random stranger somewhere in the world dies. There's 8 billion people in the world, at least a few hundred are born and die every minute.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Since people are already dying at random I would take it. Given they do not actively enforce the dying part.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    remember that cring video he did with KSI, its like they were in cave in afghanistan, and he had a gun to the guests head to force them to eat his lunchly.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›