|Ruby||v1.235.0Oct 5th 2020||(+66/-9)|
|Deku-shrub||v1.234.0May 10th 2017|
|v1.233.0Jan 18th 2014||(+134) /* Nonsentient Bloggers */|
|v1.232.0Jan 4th 2014||(+127) /* Will As Thou Wilt */|
|v1.231.0Dec 31st 2013||(+6/-5) /* Use the Try Harder, Luke */ fixed typo|
|v1.230.0Dec 27th 2013||(+459) /* Mirrors and Paintings */|
|v1.229.0Dec 26th 2013||(+11/-6) /* No License To Be Human */|
|v1.228.0Dec 26th 2013||(+312) /* No License To Be Human */|
|v1.227.0Dec 24th 2013||(+3/-3) /* Stop Voting For Nincompoops */ fixed typo|
|v1.226.0Dec 23rd 2013||(+9/-9) /* The Comedy of Behaviorism */ capitalization|
A fictional exchange between Mark
Hamil and George Lucas over the scene in Empire Strikes Back where Luke Skywalker attempts to lift his X-wing with the force.
Good things aren't good because humans care about what's good.
Things are good because they save lives, make people happy, give us control over our own lives, involve us with others and prevent us from collapsing into total self-absorption, keep life complex and non-repeating and aesthetic and interesting, etc.
Many people try to vote "strategically", by considering which candidate is more "electable". One of the most important factors in whether someone is "electable" is whether they have received attention from the media and the support of one of the two major parties. Naturally, those organizations put considerable thought into who is electable in making their decision. Ultimately, all arguments for "strategic voting" tend to fall apart. The voters themselves get so little say in
why the next president is that the best we can do is just to not vote for nincompoops.
The behaviorists thought that speaking about anything like a mind, or emotions, or thoughts, was unscientific. After all, they said, you can't observe anger. You can just observe behavior. But, it is possible, using empathy, to correctly predict wide varieties of behavior, which you can't account for by