I find it hilarious that there was an entire debate about whether a hot dog counts as a sandwich but nobody referenced the "should a sandwich be cut horizontally or diagonally" question from earlier. If you can't cut a hot dog diagonally, then it simply can't be a sandwich. Case closed.
@@brook_angel Yes, the photo is overexposed and apparently that causes some people's brains to flip out and see the dress as actually in shadow... somehow, despite clearly being lit from above
This game is basically: “Do you let five terrorists kick a puppy, or do you kick that same puppy.” And no matter what you choose, it’ll call you a puppy kicking terrorist and have a boot jumpscare in 20 levels or so.
Shoutout to the level with the switches when you're in the plane or whatever because it's literally just "solve the puzzle" there's zero moral complexity the game just forgets what the fuck it's based on.
@@plasmaxander912And also it's impossible just to have you blow up. Instead of maybe having a scenario about throwing out food or entertainment to help stabilize the plane.
2:05 - Jello has hit the nail on the head there for me: As long as the people were equivalent. The problem with the trolley problem is that it doesn't take into account that sometimes who the people are can entirely change the answer. Like, in the classic 1 person versus 5 people, I'd normally choose to save 5 people, but if the 5 people were like... Neo-Nazis and the one person was just average or better, I'm totally letting the trolley hit those 5 Nazis.
That makes perfect sense on an outside basis, but it goes against the "trolley problem". There are 6 strangers, and you have mere moments to make a choice. Unless they go out in WW2 Third Reich uniforms, and you can guarantee they are serious, there is no way to tell who is better to save.
I think the actual original hypothesis of the trolley problem (or at least one of the earliest variations) is that the five people are strangers and the one person is a loved one. So the moral problem becomes less a numbers debate, and more of a "does the emotional connection you have to the singular person outweigh the sacrifice of five lives". If you take out the emotional attachment there, it stops being a moral experiment and just becomes a math problem.
Jello: I’m an asshole and everybody loves me. Me: Yeah, slay Jello: the dress is white and gold. Me: 1000 lashings, your hubris will be your own undoing.
In all fairness, teachers were obnoxiously adamant about it And considering Jello did mention that he learned it from photography classes, he probably went through the same thing I did Where the teacher presented that photo as an optical illusion, asked us what color it is, all of us answered blue and black, they got mad and told us it was white and gold in shadow, we tell them we don't see it, they get mad and they insist they're right constantly until we get tired and just accept it because why wouldn't we? They know better (or at least they're supposed to)
I know for a fact that trolley problem game just pulled from random philosophies, because we read that violinist problem in my introductory philosophy class. And yes, it came from a paper about abortion! The paper is called "A Defense of Abortion" by Judith Jarvis Thompson. Edit: So did the question about the rapidly expanding baby, and the one about baby seeds. One, my class all ragged on those thought experiments for being weird as hell. And two, the creators of this game really did an awful job with integrating these experiments. These scenarios were meant to explicitly be paired with a dissection of pro-life rhetoric, and they were arguably the weakest parts of the paper. So in this game, they're just nonsensical and stupid because they're divorced from the original context. But because the original creator made them to fit within a specific paper, it's still pretty obvious what they're about---even without said paper. This game went from "creative if you're in the right mindset" to "fucking annoying garbage" really quickly.
For a little point of the first "Don't want to be implicated for murder" point: In the U.S.A. there is a law called the Good Samaritan law. Basically, as long as you can show your intentions were to help people, you can't be prosecuted for the crime. One of the main reasons this came about would be from a scenario similar to a woman choking or not breathing. If there is no Good Samaritan law, almost nobody would try to do the Heimlich or CPR in those cases, as the person you saved could turn around and hit you with a sexual harassment suit. While I'm unsure in this case, as long as you prove you wanted to save 5 people by sacrificing 1, and there isn't any other reasonable options (in this case due to both being on the track), you would be able to get out of the murder accusation.
It's not to protect againsy a sh suit It's to protect against a personal injury suit. CPR done right can break ribs and I want to say someone actually did sue someone before they put the law in place
I can't believe trolley problem inc isn't trying to make some satirical statement about how pointless forcing people to answer binary hypotheticals is to begin with. Like the fact that it doesn't care what you do on the dog question and keeps acting like you answered one way to things kind of seem like that but could also be bad design, but just the fact that it keeps ramping up the circumstances to be more and more specific while also doing that *and* constantly insulting you over it makes it seem almost intentional
Every time the steam game appears in a video I'm more and more disappointed it doesn't actually change based on your choices. Guilt tripping on every choice is fine and funny, but like when you divert the trolley away from the dying dog and still get accused of killing a dog, it's just a bit frustrating. Edit: I've never seen that disclaimer at the start that literally says your choices matter. That just makes it more disappointing. I reckon if I find the time, I'll make a trolly problem game that actually uses your choices, and it's not like the problem will be forgotten so if it takes me 20 years so be it.
Also there's the fact that there is an achievement and essentially "secret third option" that DOES let you save the dog. Well, not in any way the game properly recognizes, as it still considers you to have picked one of the other options, but yeah. It's frankly insulting on a personal level that he credits himself for saving the dog when it's not possible in any way to have that result going forward. I couldn't find a clip online, so here's a quick vid I made of it if any of you want to see. th-cam.com/video/SRBUIA7dchk/w-d-xo.html
The funny thing is I tried looking up what people thought of that game And the developer allegedly made a reddit post telling everyone "This is a game filled with difficult choices, and remember, your choices habe consequences" And everyone in that post is just praising it constantly and like bro Are... are we looking at the same game? When you get the same consequences, no, your choices do not matter Like I get it, it's the developer, most of the ones in the post are gonna be a bunch of yes-men, but still, seeing it all was quite bizarre
I think that the problem with trolley problem inc is that it’s framing it like there’s a genuine “good choice” and is incredibly set on making you feel bad When the point of the trolley problem is that there’s literally no good choice you just have to pick the lesser evil and it’s meant to be torture
The problem with the steam game giving THAT much fluff to trolly-problem esque stuff is that it just boils down to the politics of the creators rather than real ethical dilemmas. The framing of so many of these have a cartoonishly right-wing bias.
@@Robin_Glorb "Based on" being the keywords there. Something can be based on something else while still being filtered through biased framing that changes the meaning.
@@mr.incorporeal7642 i know this is 3 months old, but the game shames you for both choices you make. meaning if you went the evil right wing money tycoon route, it would've shamed you just as much. except for the abortion ones, if you noticed when they picked the options for getting rid of the baby for both of them the game didn't shame them barely at all compared to all the other ones.
thats not entirely correct. trolley problem inc shames you for whichever choice you choose so if you are answering from a left wing mindset it will seem right wing and vice versa.
Jello talked me into the clone one. One could transition, one could stay the same, one could try going into politics, another assassination, and the fifth one would just eat everything.
Yeah like The point of the trolley problem is to point out the INCREDIBLY basic concept that inaction does not mean the same thing as uninvolved or not responsible. Pushing the problem beyond that isn’t really any better than a “would you rather” question
@@sideways5153 I was about to comment the same thing, the trolley problem has become a variant of would you rather. Would you rather: Do you want to get, 'X' or 'Y'. Trolley: Should you do, 'X' or 'Y' Aimed more at morality. But like would you rather, maaan I need context. If they're too vague, then they become obvious. Then they get memed and now they'll be absurdist humor forever. Ie: "Do you pull the lever directing the trolley toward ten infants and ten elderly, or do nothing, and let a single gummy bear get murdered" Most people would pull the lever, you know, for the funny. I think this games great, it seems to just over lean into the absurdity of it with the narrators tone and contradictions.
That's a shitty example. Most restaurants in general wouldn't be expected to sell hotdogs, not due to whether they're sandwiches or not, but because... they're fucking hotdogs man.
I'm not done watching just yet, but I would like to point out that the Trolley game they play on steam is a horrible execution of the "trolley problem" concept. I think the point of the original concept, which was executed just fine on the website they started on, was that you had the basic information relaying the situation to you, and then nothing else. It allowed you and your friends to decided what was the moral action in any given scenario without outside influence or judgement. Also, I imagine the tone they were going for with the sarcasm was supposed to be something like Glados, because I got Aperture vibes as well. But instead of being funny, it just comes off as pretentious and self-righteous.
If i remember correctly the trolly problem was created to be a general critique of utilitarianism and the idea that the ends justify the means. It set up an initial situation in which many would agree kill 1 save 5 that is meant to slowly twist the concept until the position is indefensible. do you kill an innocent person that was in no way involved (fat guy), a health person (the guy with 5 matching organs), yourself(you), etc so long as more lives are technically saved. A true Utilitarian straw man would always kill the 1 even if it is horribly inhumane to do so. In the modern day people like to play with the concept on its surface level rather than engage with the creators point.
@@jobhunter5090 I don't think it was originally formulated as a critique of utilitarianism. If you look at the original paper its from its about critiquing the doctrine of double effect, utilitarianism isn't mentioned once in the whole paper.
@@MKBCelestial Looking over the work I think you might be right. My mind made some jumps (as I have read multiple works about the trolly problem since the original work) and while the problem has utilitarian defenders and made waves with such thinking, looking deeper into the original work it is definitely about the doctrine of double effect. Utilitarian's have definitely made arguments on the trolley problem and it has since its inception been used to attack utilitarian thinking, but I want to say you are correct.
I think went full force on the over the top and absurd trolley problems. And the moral aspect. To make fun of them sure. But because of how earnest it is in its execution. It ends up having walked a tightrope. I found it funny, the sheer amount of venom in the narrators voice, when they made the thing I told them not to make was so frustratingpy funny. But then others just found it frustrating. If you go in expecting it to be moral, its aweful to have choice ripped from your hands then told off and have someone try and make you feel bad. It's a problem...
I feel like the real problem with the abortion problems is that they are so focused around the 9 months that they don't even tackle the other half of the equation. Would I save a violinist by being tied to them for 9 months maybe (probably unless we couldn't get along), but I wouldn't have to see them ever again after it was over. Similarly would I plant a person flower even if it took very little effort on my part and persisted entirely on its own no. Because neither of these take into account the 16+ years of being responsible for another human being that having a child entails. Abortion is just as much about losing a 5th of your life taking responsibility for another human being, as it is about the pains of pregnancy in those 9 months itself.
Technology adoption exists so if you wanna toss your baby to someone else to deal with they'll only take like a year of your life before you can forget about them (since adoption takes a while).
Esp considering pregnancy isn’t exactly harmless. Aside from the (unacceptably high for a first world country) risk of literally dying, even the most healthy basic pregnancies will permanently fuck up bone density, massively increase the risk of heart attacks, potentially cause the loss of teeth, shift organs, tear perineal skin, cause agonizing labor, and cost a potentially life ruining amount in medical bills.
Well, thats a common idea people have. It lets them do selfish things and not give back to communities by justifying to themselves that because they are better than average they are allowed to focus on themselves. Not saying Jello does this, cuz I haven't looked into if he does charity work or not, its just a common deflection used by people who are selfish. Its actually a common reason communism fails if you look into it. The ideology becomes we are all equal, but some are more equal than others because some members decide they are worth multiple normal people and boom it turns into a dictatorship. Same thing hyperreligous people do, tbh. "We have a moral high ground so we are worth more inherently" type diologue, just instead of based on religeon, its intellect based/political based.
To be fair, whether you would risk punishment for your actions over a greater loss of life due to inaction is absolutely still a moral question. Arguably, more of one than the original problem. The supposed premise of the classic problem is whether it is better to be directly responsible for one death through your actions than to allow five to die through inaction. However, as the classic song says, _"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."_ In other words, by doing nothing when you know that there is an action you could have taken, which would have been a trivial effort for you, you _are_ in fact choosing to kill those five people. So it's a flawed premise. Without the knowledge that five lives can be saved, no one but a psychopath would choose to take the one, but with that knowledge, any other choice is, in essence, to knowingly kill five people. Once you know the choice exists, you can no longer be absolved of the responsibility for making it.
Im watching this while playing a game, and believe it or not, this is probably the best I've ever felt while listening to and watching two things at once.
26:35 it bothers me so much that the dress is actually black and blue, and the white/gold is just an optical illusion (I see white and gold, and I know my brain is wrong) and Jello just does not allow discussion There are pictures of the dress in other lighting where it is actually obviously black and blue, and a color picker will reveal that it is in fact black and blue
Yeah, Jello is sometimes very wrong about things but is very confident in his assertion he is correct. He's a very opinionated person. The only issue (like what we see here) is when your opinions can be backed up with facts it's important to remember your opinions are not the same as facts, which is an easy mistake to make and a character flaw of humans like Jello. Still I think it's better to have opinions and be wrong than have no opinions at all.
@@finn_underwood Okay but what about when you're wrong, can be proven wrong and just go "I'm right no matter what?" It's less about having opinions and being wrong it's more thinking your opinion is correct when it is easily disproven.
@@xacmashe3852 Having known someone similar to Jello, I may be projecting here, but... from what I've seen, Jello is someone who is very forceful with his opinions and ideas until forcefully disproven. When Jello thinks he's right and has some base evidence, it becomes very hard to convince him he's wrong without effort and counter evidence (e.g. here, where he took an art class so he is certain he's right about the dress; or in genshin where he had to do one type of puzzle to clear several obstacles, so shuts down the idea of not having to do that puzzle for more obstacles, until he unlocks a music thing to clear the obstacles instead, bypassing all future puzzles (the common thread being that his friends said "I think it's this way" or "I'm pretty sure it's this" and he responded with a strong "No" since he had evidence and they were less assertive with their own evidence or statements. ...not explaining it great but can't think of a better way of expressing that headspace.)) ...Don't get me wrong; It's definitely a character flaw. As I said in my earlier comment, I think it's better to be too opinionated than not opinionated, but I can understand it coming across as just being a jerk (which isn't exactly an incorrect read) or at worst gaslighting (which is an uncharitable but understandable read). It's completely understandable if you can't get past that trait of his, or it turning you away. I personally just took it as a "Never meet your heroes" reminder that humans be humaning and nobody's perfect. (And in Jello's defense, he did apologize for the genshin example the moment he realized he was wrong. So he's hopefully working on it and learning.)
...anyway that's been your daily dose of youtube comment psychoanalysis. My intial comment was me trying to express my own internal logic for when I also noticed that trait of Jello's - If you'd like to imagine me as just some schmuck bending over backwards to come to the defense of a creator they like, you wouldn't be entirely wrong... but I think it's important to be able to accept flaws in anything you like, even people. But that's just me.
@@finn_underwood Nah I think you're being pretty logical. I find it annoying when he does that (and he sure does it a lot) but it's not something I'd crucify him over.
Okay hear me out here, the question "would you rather have 10'000 spoons when all you need is a knife or always have a knife but never be able to use spoons?" has an easy and correct answer, take the spoons. Imagine getting mugged, what do you need right now? A knife. 10'000 spoons drop on your mugger.
Just a wizard 🪄. "Yeah don't let dav-" He's interupted as a yell emerges from the kitchen. "Dartholomew the great!" "Ugh. Right. Well he's fine at parties, just don't let him cut the cake ok?"
I think what we’ve learned here today is that if any problem involves killing people, kill as many as possible or else people will judge you and call you cringe.
19:10 One thing to consider about this scenario and ones like it, is that you don’t know if the trolley moving has people in it or not. You could be putting people in danger for effectively no reason.
The steam one was definitely made my a libertarian who read some philosophy wikis, especially with the setting and the kinda boot-licki tone it has sometimes
I like how the stupid trolley problem game has worse and more questionable morality than it comments on by limiting some choices to two nonsensically selfish options
1:29:49 When I saw that intro bit, I thought "Oh-is the moral quandary gonna be something like 'You have enough food for one of you to survive on until you're rescued. You can split it, but then there won't be enough for anyone'? That's actually kind of interesting!" Sadly, I apparently ascribed too much intelligence to this game lol.
16:35 consider however that the difference in value is not actually between 1 and 5 of the "same" guy. It's weighing the value of one person who would place themselves over 5 people who also would've put themselves over others vs 5 guys who each and all wouldve pulled the lever in the lone guy's place.
I think the hotdog sandwich debate comes down to "which orientation is considered to be the top, and in that position is bread on the top and bottom" so for a hotdog the open side is facing the top and there is no bread over it so I would say no but for a sub sandwich where the bread is still connected, the open section is not facing the top therefore it is a sandwich
i think that defining a sandwich is as simple as reading the verb sandwich, which makes it clear that the structure of two things with stuff in between them is a sandwich tacos and hot dogs are not sandwiches, but when the structure of a hot dog bun is compromised, it forms the two things needed to sandwich the dog also anything baked whether or not it- i mean... bread... should not be the defining factor for whether something is a sandwich, because you can sandwich anything together (quesadillas are def a kind of grilled cheese sandwich)
@@boonsaplenty3924 that's what you think, but anyone like me will be quick to point out that same thing (i've also seen plenty of times where those have been cut through the other edge)
2:59:22 As someone who actually can’t smell their own BO, but apparently has a lot of it (in part because I, ironically, also have Hyperhidrosis, which is the medical condition of Excessive Sweating), I find it interesting to hear you guys’ arguments 😂😅.
@@purpleisdebeste It isn't, it's clearly lit from above and slightly towards the camera, there's obviously a light shining right down onto it, it's just the overexposed background that tricks some people's brain into feeling a need to compensate
Jello values himself at being slightly more valuable to himself than 3 strangers. That's five Jellos, so the equivalent of 15 strangers, therefore of course he's going to pull the lever and sacrifice himself to save them!
15:02 I agree with Jello here! The moment you start debating about how the original you has more value than the clone you. You start falling in mauler twin territory.
For the steam game i feel like some of the questions require more context than the game is able to provide. With the urgent runaway trolley where you have seconds to choose to makes sense to be working with very little information, but when weighing the ethics of doing medicine trials where you have to knowingly allow people to go untreated while thinking theyre being treated for the sake of a placebo, youre going to have time to spend looking through tons of papers analyzing the severity of the disease, whether the patients will be foregoing other treatments or if the new tested treatment is alongside other treatments, how effective are current treatments to begin with. Or with the incorrectly programed car that starts killing drivers, you can thoroughly investigate what exactly went wrong in the coding, were the programmers actually sloppy or was it a reasonable error they couldn't have forseen, is it the fault of a different department for putting too much time pressure and not allowing for proper testing before releasing to the public. These dont quite fit the format of short text boxes with time limits requiring instant decisions. Also some of the problems seem to focus in on points that dont necessarily apply to the player. I would have no problem looking someone in the eyes as i end their life if they asked me to and i knew they didnt have much time left anyways. The ethical dilemma i would face there is the prospect of losing my job or going to jail, and if throwing my life off course is worth it to prevent someone elses suffering. But the game didnt push that very scary possibility by assuming the problem the person would have would be taking somebody's life
22:23 I would pull the lever because the ultimate thing for me is my worst enemy having to live with the knowledge that the only reason they're still alive after that day is because of me
23:00 if it was the person I dislike the most, I'd definitely let trolley run em over. But it specifically says enemy, and that makes me want to divert the trolley. There's a difference!
Okay but like your biggest enemy would mean like one of the untouchable, too-big-to-fail politicians or corporate executives who is putting the most work into making your life miserable or unlivable. Like, the choice between allowing Rupert Murdoch continue to destroy the world with a global fake news industry or just letting him get run over by a train feels like a net good for the planet, not just myself lol
24:34 imagine being the last five people on the planet, feeling relieved that you survived the literal apocalypse, when out of nowhere a trolley spawns and killst every last survivour.
2:07:35 Ok this is a bit of a rant, but WHY DID THEY CITE THE QUR'AN? That just seems controversial to me, and incidentally I happen to be reading that section at the moment. Its translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab says, "Every soul will be paid in full for its deeds, for Allah(swt) knows best what they have done." which is alright I suppose for the Death Problem that was there previously, but CERTAINLY NOT this problem, especially considering the additional flavor they added during the problem. Why.
That's assuming other forms of public transport don't exist to take its place. In America it'd be cut and dry, outside of the states there's trains, monorails, electric engine busses, trolley busses, etc etc.
Not a huge fan of the implications that s*xually harassing underage students who depend on you for grades is “not doing anything”. That’s definitely doing something, that left those girls with at the very least a sense of disgust, shame, and lack of trust. At worst it might’ve traumatized them for life. Just because he didn’t literally assault someone (to your knowledge) doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything that bad. If he’s that brazen about it, it’s pretty likely he eventually escalated too. I’d 100% protect the world from that nonce and let the trolley have him.
the second game (edit: actually the 3rd because i forgot the game with the sandwich questions lol) you played was so obnoxious but watching jello and co shit on it constantly was a fun time. the neal dot fun one was simple and silly and i think it worked better for what it was trying to do, rather than to make the player feel bad for no reason
Since the voice is so essential for trolley problem inc it should beg for mercy if you turn down the volume like in sonic and sega all stars racing transformed
"who the hell eats chunky peanut butter?" Cut to me eating chunky peanut butter on toast "aww 😥" What can I say? I like texture, same reason I like pulp orange juice.
One thing I realize is that because of how poorly the Trolley Inc game portrays the problems, it completely mangled the reasoning behind the trolley dog problem. It's effectively the Amazon delivery problem again, because it's either go on the normal route and be late because it's being used by other trolleys or go on the dog track to get to your destination faster but you kill a dog to do so. It's not a compelling question either way, but it's supposed to be more than a "mercy kill" situation, for lack of a better term
About sweating being two stars: humans had an advantage back when we were hunter-gatherers because of sweating So without sweat humans wouldn't exist One star caused humanity
3:53:06 marrisa seems like she would totally be a character in komi can't communicate or saiki.k! but like the ones where you could actively enjoy watching
3:06:34 food fight but for a different reason, tldr i am the smart kind of autistic and because of that i have a heightened feeling with pain and water balloons to me are like getting hit with a baseball minus the bruising! and water balloons almost never break, with a food fight, like ooh yeah im just gonna get covered in food also there is this annual festival somewhere in the mediterranean where one day everyone gets tomatoes which are a soft food and they just throw them at eachother!
27:13 It’s funny how, if you really process this question, it just pools down to “where imdid the very first chicken come from.” Which means it’s just a question of creationism vs evolution. If you believe some god created all the animals, then that means a god created a chicken, not an egg. (I mean, how would that work for MAMMALS if he created animals in a non-adult state?) Meanwhile, if you believe in evolution, that means the chicken’s evolutionary ancestor (sone kind of jungle fowl) laid an egg that was just slightly mutated in a way that could have it be called a “chicken egg.” (Of course, evolution isn’t so black and white hard line like that, but whatever.) So, the answer is obviously the egg.
My favorite pizza toppings to put together are pepperoni, black olives, and pineapple. You really do need the unctuousness and savoriness of the pepperoni and the saltiness of the black olives to compensate for the sweet and sour quality of the pineapple. Together they make something delicious.
Also to counter the counter on tacos not being a sandwhich cause there not on bread tortilla is still bread just not a risen bread so if hotdogs are a sandwhich then to should be tacos which neither are
See, the thing about sock shoe sock shoe or sock sock shoe shoe debate is that the first time I heard that, I was like, what kind of psychopath does sock shoe sock shoe? and then the next time I put on socks and shoes I realized I was the psychopath.
I find it hilarious that there was an entire debate about whether a hot dog counts as a sandwich but nobody referenced the "should a sandwich be cut horizontally or diagonally" question from earlier. If you can't cut a hot dog diagonally, then it simply can't be a sandwich. Case closed.
Honestly the best point brought up ~ Aloha
There is also the fact if a hot dog is not a sandwich then what is a meatball sub
@@TC2MB An abomination
@@TC2MB a mistake
@@TC2MB A meatball sub is a sub. We call subs sandwiches but they really aren't.
Probably the best of these streams where the trio just chats with no real stream plan
jello "i have taken photography classes" apocalypse being objectively wrong about the true color of the dress is very funny to me
So it really is black and blue then?
@@brook_angel yeah. In other images of it it is immensely clear. That one image just has weird lighting
@@brook_angel
Yes, the photo is overexposed and apparently that causes some people's brains to flip out and see the dress as actually in shadow... somehow, despite clearly being lit from above
I always thought it was blue and gold
I also thought of it as blue and gold
The game: You can kill 10,000,000 people just cause, or not and lose $12.43
Jello: I’m going to not kill people
The game: Communist.
It also shames you for picking the other one
fucking COMMIE
The five lobsters vs cat is a trick question because the cat counts as nine lives.
This game is basically:
“Do you let five terrorists kick a puppy, or do you kick that same puppy.”
And no matter what you choose, it’ll call you a puppy kicking terrorist and have a boot jumpscare in 20 levels or so.
Shoutout to the level with the switches when you're in the plane or whatever because it's literally just "solve the puzzle" there's zero moral complexity the game just forgets what the fuck it's based on.
@@plasmaxander912And also it's impossible just to have you blow up. Instead of maybe having a scenario about throwing out food or entertainment to help stabilize the plane.
@@plasmaxander912 The puzzle is unsolvable, so it's basically a cutscene. Still super weird.
I LOVE HOW THE JUMPSCARES DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT THEN THE #CANCELJELLO GOT A GENUINE TERRIFIED "NOOOOO!"
2:05 - Jello has hit the nail on the head there for me: As long as the people were equivalent. The problem with the trolley problem is that it doesn't take into account that sometimes who the people are can entirely change the answer. Like, in the classic 1 person versus 5 people, I'd normally choose to save 5 people, but if the 5 people were like... Neo-Nazis and the one person was just average or better, I'm totally letting the trolley hit those 5 Nazis.
If the choice is between 5 nazis and an empty track I'd still let it hit them
That makes perfect sense on an outside basis, but it goes against the "trolley problem".
There are 6 strangers, and you have mere moments to make a choice. Unless they go out in WW2 Third Reich uniforms, and you can guarantee they are serious, there is no way to tell who is better to save.
I think the actual original hypothesis of the trolley problem (or at least one of the earliest variations) is that the five people are strangers and the one person is a loved one. So the moral problem becomes less a numbers debate, and more of a "does the emotional connection you have to the singular person outweigh the sacrifice of five lives". If you take out the emotional attachment there, it stops being a moral experiment and just becomes a math problem.
Jello and gang slogging through a massive fake-deep game is very entertaining not gonna lie
Jello: I’m an asshole and everybody loves me.
Me: Yeah, slay
Jello: the dress is white and gold.
Me: 1000 lashings, your hubris will be your own undoing.
In all fairness, teachers were obnoxiously adamant about it
And considering Jello did mention that he learned it from photography classes, he probably went through the same thing I did
Where the teacher presented that photo as an optical illusion, asked us what color it is, all of us answered blue and black, they got mad and told us it was white and gold in shadow, we tell them we don't see it, they get mad and they insist they're right constantly until we get tired and just accept it because why wouldn't we?
They know better (or at least they're supposed to)
I know for a fact that trolley problem game just pulled from random philosophies, because we read that violinist problem in my introductory philosophy class. And yes, it came from a paper about abortion! The paper is called "A Defense of Abortion" by Judith Jarvis Thompson.
Edit: So did the question about the rapidly expanding baby, and the one about baby seeds. One, my class all ragged on those thought experiments for being weird as hell. And two, the creators of this game really did an awful job with integrating these experiments. These scenarios were meant to explicitly be paired with a dissection of pro-life rhetoric, and they were arguably the weakest parts of the paper. So in this game, they're just nonsensical and stupid because they're divorced from the original context. But because the original creator made them to fit within a specific paper, it's still pretty obvious what they're about---even without said paper.
This game went from "creative if you're in the right mindset" to "fucking annoying garbage" really quickly.
For a little point of the first "Don't want to be implicated for murder" point:
In the U.S.A. there is a law called the Good Samaritan law. Basically, as long as you can show your intentions were to help people, you can't be prosecuted for the crime.
One of the main reasons this came about would be from a scenario similar to a woman choking or not breathing. If there is no Good Samaritan law, almost nobody would try to do the Heimlich or CPR in those cases, as the person you saved could turn around and hit you with a sexual harassment suit.
While I'm unsure in this case, as long as you prove you wanted to save 5 people by sacrificing 1, and there isn't any other reasonable options (in this case due to both being on the track), you would be able to get out of the murder accusation.
It's not to protect againsy a sh suit It's to protect against a personal injury suit. CPR done right can break ribs and I want to say someone actually did sue someone before they put the law in place
@@yourlocalnerd7788 it is in fact both. Otherwise you'd have people fake-drowning in order to get SA suits.
"i value myself quite highly, and moreso than the average person" "i think i'm worth 3 people..."
💀💀💀
I can't believe trolley problem inc isn't trying to make some satirical statement about how pointless forcing people to answer binary hypotheticals is to begin with. Like the fact that it doesn't care what you do on the dog question and keeps acting like you answered one way to things kind of seem like that but could also be bad design, but just the fact that it keeps ramping up the circumstances to be more and more specific while also doing that *and* constantly insulting you over it makes it seem almost intentional
Every time the steam game appears in a video I'm more and more disappointed it doesn't actually change based on your choices. Guilt tripping on every choice is fine and funny, but like when you divert the trolley away from the dying dog and still get accused of killing a dog, it's just a bit frustrating.
Edit: I've never seen that disclaimer at the start that literally says your choices matter. That just makes it more disappointing. I reckon if I find the time, I'll make a trolly problem game that actually uses your choices, and it's not like the problem will be forgotten so if it takes me 20 years so be it.
I support your endeavor to make a proper trolley problem game
Also there's the fact that there is an achievement and essentially "secret third option" that DOES let you save the dog. Well, not in any way the game properly recognizes, as it still considers you to have picked one of the other options, but yeah. It's frankly insulting on a personal level that he credits himself for saving the dog when it's not possible in any way to have that result going forward.
I couldn't find a clip online, so here's a quick vid I made of it if any of you want to see.
th-cam.com/video/SRBUIA7dchk/w-d-xo.html
@@razorblaze4522Explosm, the Cyanide and Happiness guys, have made a proper trolley problem game, Trial by Trolley. It's great.
The funny thing is I tried looking up what people thought of that game
And the developer allegedly made a reddit post telling everyone "This is a game filled with difficult choices, and remember, your choices habe consequences"
And everyone in that post is just praising it constantly and like bro
Are... are we looking at the same game?
When you get the same consequences, no, your choices do not matter
Like I get it, it's the developer, most of the ones in the post are gonna be a bunch of yes-men, but still, seeing it all was quite bizarre
I think that the problem with trolley problem inc is that it’s framing it like there’s a genuine “good choice” and is incredibly set on making you feel bad
When the point of the trolley problem is that there’s literally no good choice you just have to pick the lesser evil and it’s meant to be torture
I mean, the game literally shames you for whatever choice you make.
Yeah, it always pretends whatever you didn't pick was the right answer. Which is weird. I'm not sure if it's weird in a good or bad way.
@@billyharris2794I think it almost got it, but it doesn’t try hard enough to guilt you for it
This doesn't surprise me, as the original trolly problem was made to be an example of a bad moral quandry.
The entire point of the game is making fun of that point of view
I love that Aloha is super aggressive for no reason. It's amazing
"Fake deep" is the perfect description
The problem with the steam game giving THAT much fluff to trolly-problem esque stuff is that it just boils down to the politics of the creators rather than real ethical dilemmas. The framing of so many of these have a cartoonishly right-wing bias.
the game says that all of it's questions are based on philosophy questions from different people from different time periods
@@Robin_Glorb "Based on" being the keywords there. Something can be based on something else while still being filtered through biased framing that changes the meaning.
@@mr.incorporeal7642 i know this is 3 months old, but the game shames you for both choices you make. meaning if you went the evil right wing money tycoon route, it would've shamed you just as much. except for the abortion ones, if you noticed when they picked the options for getting rid of the baby for both of them the game didn't shame them barely at all compared to all the other ones.
thats not entirely correct. trolley problem inc shames you for whichever choice you choose so if you are answering from a left wing mindset it will seem right wing and vice versa.
@@grunklestan8464a perfect recipe for pissing everyone off if thats true
"There's some completely immoral shit going on. will you be complicit, stand up for yourself, or do something Far Worse?"
I never understood feeling guilty in these scenarios
To me the guilty obviously goes to whoever’s tying all these people to the tracks.
15:30
I mean, going with the previous calculations that one Jello is worth about 3 people, you'd really be saving 15 people!
Jello talked me into the clone one. One could transition, one could stay the same, one could try going into politics, another assassination, and the fifth one would just eat everything.
Most trolley problems are inherently stupid. That said, it's always fun to see somebody as biased as Jello go through so many.
Yeah like
The point of the trolley problem is to point out the INCREDIBLY basic concept that inaction does not mean the same thing as uninvolved or not responsible.
Pushing the problem beyond that isn’t really any better than a “would you rather” question
@@sideways5153 I was about to comment the same thing, the trolley problem has become a variant of would you rather.
Would you rather:
Do you want to get, 'X' or 'Y'.
Trolley:
Should you do, 'X' or 'Y'
Aimed more at morality.
But like would you rather, maaan I need context. If they're too vague, then they become obvious. Then they get memed and now they'll be absurdist humor forever.
Ie:
"Do you pull the lever directing the trolley toward ten infants and ten elderly, or do nothing, and let a single gummy bear get murdered"
Most people would pull the lever, you know, for the funny.
I think this games great, it seems to just over lean into the absurdity of it with the narrators tone and contradictions.
If a restaurant had a "Sandwich of the Day" and you ordered it and they brought you a hot dog, you'd be mad. A hot dog is not a sandwich.
If it was topped well enough, I would be absolutely down for a nice hot dog with condiments and relishes and whatever.
No I wouldn't tho lmao
That's a shitty example. Most restaurants in general wouldn't be expected to sell hotdogs, not due to whether they're sandwiches or not, but because... they're fucking hotdogs man.
@@Marshall.R hey, don't diss the hot dogs. Would it be more restaurant appropriate if they were bratwurst?
@@FrozenGoblin There are certainly hot dogs with quality, but the point is they're not exactly known for that.
I was really hoping the "do you return the shopping cart?" Was part of the trolley problem set
I'm not done watching just yet, but I would like to point out that the Trolley game they play on steam is a horrible execution of the "trolley problem" concept. I think the point of the original concept, which was executed just fine on the website they started on, was that you had the basic information relaying the situation to you, and then nothing else. It allowed you and your friends to decided what was the moral action in any given scenario without outside influence or judgement.
Also, I imagine the tone they were going for with the sarcasm was supposed to be something like Glados, because I got Aperture vibes as well. But instead of being funny, it just comes off as pretentious and self-righteous.
If i remember correctly the trolly problem was created to be a general critique of utilitarianism and the idea that the ends justify the means. It set up an initial situation in which many would agree kill 1 save 5 that is meant to slowly twist the concept until the position is indefensible. do you kill an innocent person that was in no way involved (fat guy), a health person (the guy with 5 matching organs), yourself(you), etc so long as more lives are technically saved. A true Utilitarian straw man would always kill the 1 even if it is horribly inhumane to do so. In the modern day people like to play with the concept on its surface level rather than engage with the creators point.
@@jobhunter5090 I don't think it was originally formulated as a critique of utilitarianism. If you look at the original paper its from its about critiquing the doctrine of double effect, utilitarianism isn't mentioned once in the whole paper.
@@MKBCelestial Looking over the work I think you might be right. My mind made some jumps (as I have read multiple works about the trolly problem since the original work) and while the problem has utilitarian defenders and made waves with such thinking, looking deeper into the original work it is definitely about the doctrine of double effect. Utilitarian's have definitely made arguments on the trolley problem and it has since its inception been used to attack utilitarian thinking, but I want to say you are correct.
I think went full force on the over the top and absurd trolley problems.
And the moral aspect.
To make fun of them sure. But because of how earnest it is in its execution. It ends up having walked a tightrope.
I found it funny, the sheer amount of venom in the narrators voice, when they made the thing I told them not to make was so frustratingpy funny.
But then others just found it frustrating.
If you go in expecting it to be moral, its aweful to have choice ripped from your hands then told off and have someone try and make you feel bad.
It's a problem...
"I've taken photography classes."
>is wrong
I feel like the real problem with the abortion problems is that they are so focused around the 9 months that they don't even tackle the other half of the equation. Would I save a violinist by being tied to them for 9 months maybe (probably unless we couldn't get along), but I wouldn't have to see them ever again after it was over. Similarly would I plant a person flower even if it took very little effort on my part and persisted entirely on its own no. Because neither of these take into account the 16+ years of being responsible for another human being that having a child entails. Abortion is just as much about losing a 5th of your life taking responsibility for another human being, as it is about the pains of pregnancy in those 9 months itself.
Technology adoption exists so if you wanna toss your baby to someone else to deal with they'll only take like a year of your life before you can forget about them (since adoption takes a while).
Esp considering pregnancy isn’t exactly harmless. Aside from the (unacceptably high for a first world country) risk of literally dying, even the most healthy basic pregnancies will permanently fuck up bone density, massively increase the risk of heart attacks, potentially cause the loss of teeth, shift organs, tear perineal skin, cause agonizing labor, and cost a potentially life ruining amount in medical bills.
Jello: "I'm worth like 3 people!"
Also jello:"I'm a communist!"
Well, thats a common idea people have. It lets them do selfish things and not give back to communities by justifying to themselves that because they are better than average they are allowed to focus on themselves. Not saying Jello does this, cuz I haven't looked into if he does charity work or not, its just a common deflection used by people who are selfish.
Its actually a common reason communism fails if you look into it. The ideology becomes we are all equal, but some are more equal than others because some members decide they are worth multiple normal people and boom it turns into a dictatorship.
Same thing hyperreligous people do, tbh. "We have a moral high ground so we are worth more inherently" type diologue, just instead of based on religeon, its intellect based/political based.
To be fair, whether you would risk punishment for your actions over a greater loss of life due to inaction is absolutely still a moral question. Arguably, more of one than the original problem. The supposed premise of the classic problem is whether it is better to be directly responsible for one death through your actions than to allow five to die through inaction. However, as the classic song says, _"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."_ In other words, by doing nothing when you know that there is an action you could have taken, which would have been a trivial effort for you, you _are_ in fact choosing to kill those five people. So it's a flawed premise. Without the knowledge that five lives can be saved, no one but a psychopath would choose to take the one, but with that knowledge, any other choice is, in essence, to knowingly kill five people. Once you know the choice exists, you can no longer be absolved of the responsibility for making it.
I think i fell asleep while watching this, woke up halfway through and was astronomically confused but continued watch
Jello saying he’s worth 3 normal people fucking terrifies me
jellos response to the hotdog question made me irrationally mad for some reason
Im watching this while playing a game, and believe it or not, this is probably the best I've ever felt while listening to and watching two things at once.
The thing about the trolley problem is that you can always pull the lever if you are incapable of comprehending the consequences.
26:35 it bothers me so much that the dress is actually black and blue, and the white/gold is just an optical illusion (I see white and gold, and I know my brain is wrong) and Jello just does not allow discussion
There are pictures of the dress in other lighting where it is actually obviously black and blue, and a color picker will reveal that it is in fact black and blue
Yeah, Jello is sometimes very wrong about things but is very confident in his assertion he is correct. He's a very opinionated person. The only issue (like what we see here) is when your opinions can be backed up with facts it's important to remember your opinions are not the same as facts, which is an easy mistake to make and a character flaw of humans like Jello. Still I think it's better to have opinions and be wrong than have no opinions at all.
@@finn_underwood Okay but what about when you're wrong, can be proven wrong and just go "I'm right no matter what?" It's less about having opinions and being wrong it's more thinking your opinion is correct when it is easily disproven.
@@xacmashe3852 Having known someone similar to Jello, I may be projecting here, but... from what I've seen, Jello is someone who is very forceful with his opinions and ideas until forcefully disproven. When Jello thinks he's right and has some base evidence, it becomes very hard to convince him he's wrong without effort and counter evidence (e.g. here, where he took an art class so he is certain he's right about the dress; or in genshin where he had to do one type of puzzle to clear several obstacles, so shuts down the idea of not having to do that puzzle for more obstacles, until he unlocks a music thing to clear the obstacles instead, bypassing all future puzzles (the common thread being that his friends said "I think it's this way" or "I'm pretty sure it's this" and he responded with a strong "No" since he had evidence and they were less assertive with their own evidence or statements. ...not explaining it great but can't think of a better way of expressing that headspace.))
...Don't get me wrong; It's definitely a character flaw. As I said in my earlier comment, I think it's better to be too opinionated than not opinionated, but I can understand it coming across as just being a jerk (which isn't exactly an incorrect read) or at worst gaslighting (which is an uncharitable but understandable read). It's completely understandable if you can't get past that trait of his, or it turning you away.
I personally just took it as a "Never meet your heroes" reminder that humans be humaning and nobody's perfect.
(And in Jello's defense, he did apologize for the genshin example the moment he realized he was wrong. So he's hopefully working on it and learning.)
...anyway that's been your daily dose of youtube comment psychoanalysis. My intial comment was me trying to express my own internal logic for when I also noticed that trait of Jello's - If you'd like to imagine me as just some schmuck bending over backwards to come to the defense of a creator they like, you wouldn't be entirely wrong... but I think it's important to be able to accept flaws in anything you like, even people. But that's just me.
@@finn_underwood Nah I think you're being pretty logical. I find it annoying when he does that (and he sure does it a lot) but it's not something I'd crucify him over.
Okay hear me out here, the question "would you rather have 10'000 spoons when all you need is a knife or always have a knife but never be able to use spoons?" has an easy and correct answer, take the spoons. Imagine getting mugged, what do you need right now? A knife. 10'000 spoons drop on your mugger.
Just a wizard 🪄.
"Yeah don't let dav-" He's interupted as a yell emerges from the kitchen.
"Dartholomew the great!"
"Ugh. Right. Well he's fine at parties, just don't let him cut the cake ok?"
I think what we’ve learned here today is that if any problem involves killing people, kill as many as possible or else people will judge you and call you cringe.
19:10
One thing to consider about this scenario and ones like it, is that you don’t know if the trolley moving has people in it or not. You could be putting people in danger for effectively no reason.
The steam one was definitely made my a libertarian who read some philosophy wikis, especially with the setting and the kinda boot-licki tone it has sometimes
turns out the dude who made trolley problem inc. is a pewdiepie fan which explains a LOT
31:10 Jello's comment about tacos and hot dogs hurt me in a way I never thought possible.
I liked discovering that apparently Aloha is just a sociopath who would happily kill someone for money and says so without hesitation
I like how the stupid trolley problem game has worse and more questionable morality than it comments on by limiting some choices to two nonsensically selfish options
1:29:49
When I saw that intro bit, I thought "Oh-is the moral quandary gonna be something like 'You have enough food for one of you to survive on until you're rescued. You can split it, but then there won't be enough for anyone'? That's actually kind of interesting!"
Sadly, I apparently ascribed too much intelligence to this game lol.
16:35 consider however that the difference in value is not actually between 1 and 5 of the "same" guy. It's weighing the value of one person who would place themselves over 5 people who also would've put themselves over others vs 5 guys who each and all wouldve pulled the lever in the lone guy's place.
The recursive nature of the problem is actually an interesting layer. Great point
The company came forward about it: The dress was black and blue. They made a white and gold variant, in response.
Sock shoe vs sock sock is pretty much just "Are you outdoors enough to need to change your socks mid day"
“Do you change/put on socks whenever you put on shoes or do you wear the same socks all day?” But phrased in an infuriating way lol
"Oh we're finished! I was expecting that to be way longer!" 25:47 out of 4:53:35
I got so sidetracked by the obvious animal crossing music in the second trolley game 🤣 Couldn’t even remove Sable’s sewing machine noises?
DON’T YOU DARE DISS MY MAIN MAN CHUNKY PEANUT BUTTER
This game saw the trolley problem and just straight up didn’t get it
I think the hotdog sandwich debate comes down to "which orientation is considered to be the top, and in that position is bread on the top and bottom" so for a hotdog the open side is facing the top and there is no bread over it so I would say no but for a sub sandwich where the bread is still connected, the open section is not facing the top therefore it is a sandwich
i think that defining a sandwich is as simple as reading the verb sandwich, which makes it clear that the structure of two things with stuff in between them is a sandwich
tacos and hot dogs are not sandwiches, but when the structure of a hot dog bun is compromised, it forms the two things needed to sandwich the dog
also anything baked whether or not it- i mean... bread... should not be the defining factor for whether something is a sandwich, because you can sandwich anything together (quesadillas are def a kind of grilled cheese sandwich)
What about sub sandwiches? they're not fully detached, but we don't quibble if they're a sandwich or not.
@@boonsaplenty3924 that's what you think, but anyone like me will be quick to point out that same thing (i've also seen plenty of times where those have been cut through the other edge)
2:59:22 As someone who actually can’t smell their own BO, but apparently has a lot of it (in part because I, ironically, also have Hyperhidrosis, which is the medical condition of Excessive Sweating), I find it interesting to hear you guys’ arguments 😂😅.
16:52 Jello's okay with losing the coin toss. Nice
Thank you jello for being wrong and loud about the dress lmao. “I took photography classes” 💀 like sir…
@@purpleisdebeste
It isn't, it's clearly lit from above and slightly towards the camera, there's obviously a light shining right down onto it, it's just the overexposed background that tricks some people's brain into feeling a need to compensate
Being confidently wrong is one of Jello's favorite pastimes, lmao
Jello values himself at being slightly more valuable to himself than 3 strangers. That's five Jellos, so the equivalent of 15 strangers, therefore of course he's going to pull the lever and sacrifice himself to save them!
4:47:02 I am now using that quote
"The water is very pretty today"
15:02
I agree with Jello here!
The moment you start debating about how the original you has more value than the clone you. You start falling in mauler twin territory.
"Do you know how much five me could do???" so much....
A trolley problem game which turns out to be a complete trainwreck. How ironic.
For the infinite loop... how do you survive jumping out a trolley moving 50 mph?
For the steam game i feel like some of the questions require more context than the game is able to provide. With the urgent runaway trolley where you have seconds to choose to makes sense to be working with very little information, but when weighing the ethics of doing medicine trials where you have to knowingly allow people to go untreated while thinking theyre being treated for the sake of a placebo, youre going to have time to spend looking through tons of papers analyzing the severity of the disease, whether the patients will be foregoing other treatments or if the new tested treatment is alongside other treatments, how effective are current treatments to begin with. Or with the incorrectly programed car that starts killing drivers, you can thoroughly investigate what exactly went wrong in the coding, were the programmers actually sloppy or was it a reasonable error they couldn't have forseen, is it the fault of a different department for putting too much time pressure and not allowing for proper testing before releasing to the public. These dont quite fit the format of short text boxes with time limits requiring instant decisions.
Also some of the problems seem to focus in on points that dont necessarily apply to the player. I would have no problem looking someone in the eyes as i end their life if they asked me to and i knew they didnt have much time left anyways. The ethical dilemma i would face there is the prospect of losing my job or going to jail, and if throwing my life off course is worth it to prevent someone elses suffering. But the game didnt push that very scary possibility by assuming the problem the person would have would be taking somebody's life
22:23
I would pull the lever because the ultimate thing for me is my worst enemy having to live with the knowledge that the only reason they're still alive after that day is because of me
23:00 if it was the person I dislike the most, I'd definitely let trolley run em over. But it specifically says enemy, and that makes me want to divert the trolley. There's a difference!
Okay but like your biggest enemy would mean like one of the untouchable, too-big-to-fail politicians or corporate executives who is putting the most work into making your life miserable or unlivable.
Like, the choice between allowing Rupert Murdoch continue to destroy the world with a global fake news industry or just letting him get run over by a train feels like a net good for the planet, not just myself lol
Great to know that Salty is also enjoyed here
I don't always eat hotdogs... but when I do, it's without a bun.
my opinion on the hot dog debate is this.
is a hoagie a sandwich?
if yes, so is a hotdog.
if no, neither is a hotdog.
the first game was short and sweet, with very few flaws.
everything else felt like Chinese Torture.
31:05 YES! Exactly! I've been saying this for so long now.
24:34 imagine being the last five people on the planet, feeling relieved that you survived the literal apocalypse, when out of nowhere a trolley spawns and killst every last survivour.
I put hotdogs in the same category as a meatball sub, or any other kind of sub; and is therefore, a sandwich.
Singing dog jumpscare
This stream was so silly goofy, my favorite part was the creepy pickup lines and whatnot
2:07:35 Ok this is a bit of a rant, but WHY DID THEY CITE THE QUR'AN? That just seems controversial to me, and incidentally I happen to be reading that section at the moment. Its translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab says, "Every soul will be paid in full for its deeds, for Allah(swt) knows best what they have done." which is alright I suppose for the Death Problem that was there previously, but CERTAINLY NOT this problem, especially considering the additional flavor they added during the problem. Why.
Destroying the trolly that's outputting CO2 will cause everyone whose riding it to take cars instead, which will output way more CO2.
That's assuming other forms of public transport don't exist to take its place. In America it'd be cut and dry, outside of the states there's trains, monorails, electric engine busses, trolley busses, etc etc.
trolley problem inc. reads like fucking south park philosophy
Jello wants a clone army of himself to do things around here XD
Me or 5 clones of me?
MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING
Not a huge fan of the implications that s*xually harassing underage students who depend on you for grades is “not doing anything”. That’s definitely doing something, that left those girls with at the very least a sense of disgust, shame, and lack of trust. At worst it might’ve traumatized them for life. Just because he didn’t literally assault someone (to your knowledge) doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything that bad. If he’s that brazen about it, it’s pretty likely he eventually escalated too. I’d 100% protect the world from that nonce and let the trolley have him.
the second game (edit: actually the 3rd because i forgot the game with the sandwich questions lol) you played was so obnoxious but watching jello and co shit on it constantly was a fun time. the neal dot fun one was simple and silly and i think it worked better for what it was trying to do, rather than to make the player feel bad for no reason
Since the voice is so essential for trolley problem inc it should beg for mercy if you turn down the volume like in sonic and sega all stars racing transformed
"who the hell eats chunky peanut butter?" Cut to me eating chunky peanut butter on toast "aww 😥" What can I say? I like texture, same reason I like pulp orange juice.
One thing I realize is that because of how poorly the Trolley Inc game portrays the problems, it completely mangled the reasoning behind the trolley dog problem. It's effectively the Amazon delivery problem again, because it's either go on the normal route and be late because it's being used by other trolleys or go on the dog track to get to your destination faster but you kill a dog to do so. It's not a compelling question either way, but it's supposed to be more than a "mercy kill" situation, for lack of a better term
There are definitely people who play this game trying to kill as many as possible
About sweating being two stars: humans had an advantage back when we were hunter-gatherers because of sweating
So without sweat humans wouldn't exist
One star caused humanity
insane how pedantic he got about the hot dog sandwich thing
3:53:06 marrisa seems like she would totally be a character in komi can't communicate or saiki.k! but like the ones where you could actively enjoy watching
2:24:00 you buy that and immediately have to go to mount kildane to clear out some drauger
The good citizen in number 23 would've wanted you to save the litterer.
3:06:34 food fight but for a different reason, tldr i am the smart kind of autistic and because of that i have a heightened feeling with pain and water balloons to me are like getting hit with a baseball minus the bruising! and water balloons almost never break, with a food fight, like ooh yeah im just gonna get covered in food also there is this annual festival somewhere in the mediterranean where one day everyone gets tomatoes which are a soft food and they just throw them at eachother!
If you don't want your worst enemy dead, get a better worst enemy.
27:13 It’s funny how, if you really process this question, it just pools down to “where imdid the very first chicken come from.” Which means it’s just a question of creationism vs evolution. If you believe some god created all the animals, then that means a god created a chicken, not an egg. (I mean, how would that work for MAMMALS if he created animals in a non-adult state?)
Meanwhile, if you believe in evolution, that means the chicken’s evolutionary ancestor (sone kind of jungle fowl) laid an egg that was just slightly mutated in a way that could have it be called a “chicken egg.” (Of course, evolution isn’t so black and white hard line like that, but whatever.)
So, the answer is obviously the egg.
the sock shoe question only exists because there are psychopaths who wear their shoes in their homes.
32:50 a corndog is a roll on a stick, similar to a cabbage roll, or a cheeseburger roll. Just with a popsicle stick poking out of it.
My favorite pizza toppings to put together are pepperoni, black olives, and pineapple. You really do need the unctuousness and savoriness of the pepperoni and the saltiness of the black olives to compensate for the sweet and sour quality of the pineapple. Together they make something delicious.
Also to counter the counter on tacos not being a sandwhich cause there not on bread tortilla is still bread just not a risen bread so if hotdogs are a sandwhich then to should be tacos which neither are
See, the thing about sock shoe sock shoe or sock sock shoe shoe debate is that the first time I heard that, I was like, what kind of psychopath does sock shoe sock shoe? and then the next time I put on socks and shoes I realized I was the psychopath.