Imagine there was an evil politician. We'll call him Roko. Roko Basilisk. And Mr. Basilisk was the type of person who really wanted to get elected to the highest office.
He wanted it so much that he promised to torture and kill anyone who didn't vote for him, once he got into office. So, to avoid this torture, you would want to vote for him to avoid being punished.
However, one could avoid this punishment simply by not voting for him, preventing him from getting that power in the first place.
So, would you vote for him to avoid punishment, or would you not vote for him to try to avoid it altogether?
Whats with the thought experiment?
>it's a prisoner's dilemma thread
>>27329779
Polls exist so you would be able to know before hand which strategy would give you the best result.
the point is to vote Roko or he'll murder you and everyone you love after you give him power. So give him power, or else.
>would you vote for an evil politician
That's sorta redundant, you know. I'm not even being edgy. They're almost universally greedy, dishonest sociopaths who will do or say anything to win, and they frequently, coldly, consciously make decisions that will result in thousands of deaths just to line their pockets or those of their constituents. And that's just if you only believe the mainstream media. In reality, they're puppets for an evil, global, monolithic entity that routinely tortures, brainwashes, manipulates, blackmails, and murders people and whose endgame goal is a permanent, global, irreversible technocratic police state.
Your hypothetical "evil" politician has nothing on the real ones.
>>27329859
No your missing the point. You could check the polls and know before hand whether roko would would win or lose the election and vote accordingly.
Also nice choice with the name.
>>27329779
Go back to LessWrong.
sure why not
trump isnt really that bad anyway I've seen worse
>>27329779
At first glance, no. I would notice it once and ignore it. But if the media kept talking about him, and kept reminding me of him, everyone would end up thinking more about it, and some would decide that they're safer voting him. Others would think they can get away with not voting him if he gets elected. People would start asking each other. Will you vote for Basilisk? What do you think will happen if others vote and you don't? Maybe we should just vote, it's not like politics matter anyway. Maybe we'll be better with him.
Arguments would differ from his policy of torturing those who don't vote for him. People would argue about his other opinions and then add to it the fact that if you don't vote you fuck up. Eventually, people who care about politics wouldn't vote him, while those that are easily fooled or that just don't care would vote.
Yup, I'd vote for him; he's gonna win.
>>27329919
The point is that I think Trump is going to eventually make this same threat. This whole campaign is so outlandish and doomed to failure, that at one point he will become so desperate that he becomes Roko's Basilisk.
In fact, I'm calling that he does it now.
