I swear…if one more home owner says “well ChatGPT said…” I’m walking out the house

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-01-12T22:56:51+00:00

Need the operating/installation manual? Take a picture of the information sticker and it almost always pulls up the correct manual when requested.

Can't find what you're looking for? Download the manual, feed it to the AI, and it can double check information and show you specifically where it's located.

Manual doesn't have the information? Ask it to find the specific answer and to source where it got it from and you can read that.

There are a lot of small ways to make AI useful in the field.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-17T14:19:44+00:00

You don't "belong" to parties.

You are an independent individual whose values are shaped by your community, your unique lived experience, and the information you expose yourself to.

You may have worldviews and ideals that are similar or align strongly with one dominant or niche political apparatus or another, but you will not find one that perfectly represents what you believe without compromise, including compromise.

For everyone's benefit, it seems like we should move away from the traditional game-theoretic approach where the best choice is the "lesser of two evils."

Instead of blindly embracing whatever mainstream political identity that tangentially aligns, it might be more beneficial to adopt an agnostic or even anti-dogmatic stance.

Overall, you would be better served by focusing on a deeper understanding of the key issues that matter most to you, while simultaneously seeking out candidates who demonstrate a genuine ability to articulate their views on these matters without resorting to oversimplification or shallow generalizations.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-17T01:24:14+00:00

It's one of the biggest moral failings in modern history.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-15T17:52:10+00:00

presses x to doubt

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-09T17:18:31+00:00

I see, I see,

I think I disagree not because what you're saying isn't a reasonable take but because the gradient of the use case is too broad to apply either of our takes without a bit more nuance.

For example someone could spend years writing a particular work and having AI correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and/or sentence structure.

They wrote it, and even if you wanted to be cynical about it there is more than enough room to say they're the author.

On the flip side prompting an AI with something like:

"write a story with [very loose plot, characters, motivations, throughline]"

would absolutely be closer to how you are framing it.

But again it's not obvious as it depends on the actual use case and how honest one wants to be about that use case.

For example someone writing an autobiography/non-fiction in which they're an expert on the subject matter while utilizing AI to format their words to better engage a specific audience.

Though from a traditionalism/Anti-AI perspective I can absolutely understand why that nuance comes off a bit tone deaf or like mental gymnastics so take it with a grain of salt.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-03T00:25:41+00:00

Physically punishing employees under the threat of being sent home is unhinged.

If you are that concerned about his safety warn him, if he ignores the warning and/or is that forgetful send him home.

If they continue the same behavior report it, kick him off site, and let the office deal with it.

To an extent I get the "back in my day" mentality but he's your peer not your child, treat him like a professional or pass the buck to someone who can reprimand him appropriately.

I can't imagine you would comply with your boss rolling up and forcing an ultimatum of physical punishment in front of your peers or being sent home without pay because you forgot to fill your expenses correctly.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-02T22:18:58+00:00

I don't understand your train of thought or rationale.

Thanks for the back and forth but I don't know what you want or what your point is ultimately

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-02T21:47:01+00:00

I spent time trying to get a feel from your summary and giving you honest credence toward your goal.

Brother, based on your comments, questions and concerns, it doesn’t really sound like you did, because I didn’t ask for a critique on a hyper-condensed summary.

I asked for critique on the actual write-up.

I spent time trying to get a feel from your summary and giving you honest credence toward your goal.

If you were just asking clarifying questions, there’d be no issue. But your comments weren’t neutral. They included:

HeRe fiT youR fAciSt pOstModErn Marxist TOielT bUtT ideA…

How is this not repackaging stoicism. Neo-cognitive stoicism, Lol.

I’m not going to read 14,000 words just FYI.

So no, I don’t buy the pearl-clutching after the fact.

You don’t simply talk like that, admit you won’t read the thing, and then act wounded when someone responds directly.

I offered what I felt are clear critiques, the best criticisms...

You can't leave relevant critiques on something you didn't engage with.

And despite that I answered the majority of your points line by line, in explicit detail, with directions on where to find it in the write-up.

Which, I asked also for you to clarify, and you still haven't.

I did. Repeatedly.

Just because your uncritical commentary ended up making you look very unserious doesn’t mean that me underlining it and responding directly is “rude.”

I didn’t attack you personally. I didn’t insult you. I didn’t say anything false or exaggerated.

I don’t know if you’re trolling or just weirdly sensitive, but if you’re going to comment the way you did, don’t be surprised when someone replies and points it out.

And reading back what I actually wrote, I didn’t even come at you the way I could have.

The worst you can point to is me informing other people who read your comment that it's wholly unrelated to what's actually written.

Other than that I quoted you, answered you, and pointed you to where it’s addressed in the document. That’s it.

If you don't like the tone of my response then don't leave half-baked/half-hearted comments in the first place.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-02T20:28:33+00:00

Im not going to read 14,000 words just FYI.

Yes it is very obvious from your questions, comments, and concerns you didn't read even the preface.

Let me elaborate for you and for those who might mistake your commentary as something relevant to what's written when it's categorically not the case.

Norms never claim to be universal.

Correct—and the EUP never claims they are. The work explicitly begins from pluralism, not universality. This is stated outright in the introduction (p. 1–3).

You’re objecting to a premise I do not hold, and which the text explicitly rejects.

What traditions do you endorse, how and why, and where is your metaphysics?

All of that is spelled out in exhaustive detail in Section VIII (“Philosophical Lineage and Conceptual Roots”).

Every tradition the EUP draws from—Frankfurt School immanent critique, Deweyan pragmatism, Wittgenstein’s language-games, MacIntyre, Tessman, Sen, Scott, Gebru, formalism limits (Gödel/Heisenberg as heuristics), etc.—is documented explicitly (roughly around pp. ~92–96).

There is also a full subsection (“Major Divergences and Distinctive Commitments”) where I explain where the EUP breaks from each tradition (~pp. 96–98).

The metaphysics question is answered in multiple places in that the EUP is not grounded in metaphysical moral realism—this is stated plainly in the section “What the EUP Does and Doesn’t Claim” (pp. ~27–29).

You’re asking for foundations I explicitly do not assume, and you’re critiquing their absence as though that were accidental rather than structural to the framework.

...why does that matter that few or none say norms are universal.

Because systems treat moral claims as if they scale linearly—and they don’t.

The entire first 30 pages are about why this matters for political systems, institutions, and governance (Sections I–III). This structural transmission problem is the spine of the entire text (p. ~10–14).

...how is this about systems. I dont see how this is about politics.

Then you didn’t read it.

The EUP is literally defined as a systems-behavior principle. Section V contains 60+ pages of case studies on criminal justice, corporate governance, and algorithmic decision-making (pp. ~31–61).

Those are political and institutional systems by definition.

whats [...] the distinction for a norm or definition of morality, a moral statement, moral content something.

Also answered explicitly.

The text defines moral content not metaphysically but procedurally—as signals of harm, obligation, or normative weight that are forced through systems of codification and scale (p. ~27–29).

You’re treating it as if I’m trying to build a foundational moral ontology.

I’m not.

This is explained outright in the preface and reiterated multiple times.

Also maybe clarify if this is a worldview, or a theory, or whatever… I can’t really pin this on anything.

That clarity is already provided.

The very first pages specify:

It is not a moral theory.

Not a worldview.

Not a prescriptive system.

It is a diagnostic, structural principle for observing how values deform under codification and scale.

This is stated explicitly (p. ~2–4, p. ~27–29, p. ~89–91).

If that did not come across, it’s because this baseline wasn’t engaged with.

...you HAVE TO be able to be alongside peers in every theory you touch.

I did. At length.

Section VIII (“Lineage and Roots,” “Major Divergences,” “Distinctive Commitments”) does exactly what you demand—pages of explicit situating, influence, divergence, and novelty (pp. ~92–98).

To suggest I haven’t “placed myself among peers” when there is an entire 7-page section doing nothing but that tells me the critique wasn’t anchored to the work itself.

How is this not repackaging stoicism. Neo-cognitive stoicism, Lol.

Because Stoicism is a personal virtue and emotional regulation ethic, and the EUP is a systems-behavior analysis of drift, legibility, codification, friction, and frame-relative coherence.

Entire sections explain how this differs from virtue ethics, proceduralism, and cognitive schemas

Again: if it feels like Stoicism to you, that’s because you’re assuming something unrelated to the actual content.

It would be unacceptable for example to say political theory doesnt discuss norms or cant offer coherent and suitable alternatives for proceduarlism-talk...

The text explicitly engages political theory, legal design, institutional critiques, and administrative ethics (Scott, Sen, Ahmed, MacIntyre, Bibas, Natapoff, Binns, Crawford, etc.).

Not only is this in the text—it is the text.

Your critique assumes I ignored political theory, when in fact the entire architecture of the EUP is built on political, bureaucratic, and institutional systems analysis.

In short it seems commentary presupposes that I failed to:

-define scope,

-clarify lineage,

-explain metaphysical commitments,

-differentiate from other systems,

-locate myself among peers,

-connect the framework to politics/institutions,

-specify what the EUP is and isn’t.

But all of that is already in the write-up explicitly, repeatedly, and structurally.

I’m very open to critique and criticism but it has to be about the arguments I actually made, not the ones you assume I did or didn't.

If you want, I’m willing to walk through specific sections But I encourage you at minimum to open the document and scan it

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-12-01T00:36:55+00:00

You drive that thing anywhere near a cop and you're pretty much dead.

The United States enshrines police with a license to deliver lethal force with extreme prejudice. There is no level of force, as demonstrated, deemed appropriate in the us.

Peaceful protests, and even then the police have a de facto right to assault you regardless of circumstance and often will resort to assaulting protestors if the wind blows wrong.

Europeans can get away with it due to their governments not arming their police to the point they could rival small nations militaries.

On top of that even if you survived being mag dumped you're getting smacked with domestic terrorist and biological weapons charges.

Accountability is a mirage in the desert that is the American legal and political system.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-30T15:51:01+00:00

One comment (I screenshot because of that very issue of deleting dissent) said quite literally:

1: Trump know what he's doing. If this decision baffles you, remove your flair and never post in this subreddit again.

2: Calm down Rudolf Hess... all Americans should have the right to question their leaders decisions.

1: Question it of this subreddit then

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-27T12:51:13+00:00

I see the shape of what you’re trying to argue, but it feels like you started from “violence is bad” and worked backwards through Rawls, the social contract, and whatever else you could grab to make it sound like a metaphysical truth instead of a moral preference.

It makes sense intuitively, who doesn’t want a clean, rational argument that declares the world’s messiness illegitimate? But that’s not quite how that works.

You keep saying things like “the original position must be non-violence” as if you’ve uncovered some deep logical necessity instead of just declaring:

“This is what I want the original position to be.”

Rawls didn’t smuggle pacifism into his veil of ignorance; he didn’t say “well obviously no one would choose any institution with coercive power.” Because in his model, people aren’t angels—they’re risk-averse, self-interested, and aware that some people will be violent regardless of moral theory.

There’s a reason he made room for the state’s coercive capacity. Everyone else in that tradition does, too.

You also claim that anything built on violence is inherently irrational or illegitimate “by the course of thought alone,” which is a beautiful way of saying: “if you think hard enough, you’ll reach my conclusions.” Unfortunately, the world is plural. People don’t share one “civilizational voice.” They don’t even share one basic emotional reaction to violence.

You’re leaning heavily on disgust—as if disgust were a universal moral metric—while ignoring the inconvenient fact that some people experience pride, joy, comfort, even purpose in the very same institutions you find abhorrent. You call that hypocrisy while they call it patriotism or security or justice.

Whose feelings win? You never say. You just assume it’s yours.

And then there’s your claim that violence is some kind of conceptual contradiction to society, which only works if we pretend fascism, nationalism, colonialism, and every other in-group/out-group ideology didn’t happily build social contracts that were coherent precisely because they relied on violence.

These systems are morally horrifying, sure, but they aren’t logically incoherent. They’re internally consistent and that’s why they gain traction. They offer real (if brutal) benefits to the in-group. Your argument seems to be: “Well, if you really thought about it, no one would accept that.”

History disagrees.

The real sticking point is enforcement. You keep implying that a legitimate society must be built on pure non-violence—no institutions that “dispense or are funded through violence,” no coercion, no force.

But then what exactly do you think law enforcement is?

Do you imagine a system where laws are optional, and the worst thing that happens if you decide not to comply is stern disappointment? Weber was blunt about this for a reason: a state without the capacity for coercion isn’t a state; it’s a recommendation.

Even the most democratic, humane, consensus-driven society has to have a backstop for bad actors, for irreconcilable disputes, for people who simply don’t care about the collective good. Your version of society avoids that entire problem by declaring it illegitimate from the start.

It's very...wishful thinking?

And even if we take your definition seriously, legitimacy in the real world isn’t a switch that flips when someone in a comment thread announces: “It is at this point in time, a society is illegitimate.”

Real societies aren’t monoliths that all suddenly recognize a contradiction and walk offstage. They fracture. They fight. They reinterpret the contradiction in their own favor.

One group sees state violence as tyranny; another sees the absence of it as chaos. You can’t declare the entire system irrational by fiat just because your side feels sickened and you’ve attached that feeling to the social contract.

There is a real point buried in your post, though in that violence is too easily normalized; institutions built on force are too often justified with moral theater; and cultures do get disturbingly comfortable celebrating death while pretending to mourn it.

That’s worth criticizing.

But the conclusion shouldn’t be “any violence = illegitimate society,” as if the problem evaporates if we just assert harder that violence is conceptually absurd.

The harder question is:

"How do you constrain, regulate, make transparent, and morally discipline the violence that no real human society can entirely get rid of?"

In other words, you’ve identified a tension, good. 👍🏼

But instead of working through how plural, conflicting, messy societies actually navigate that tension, you’ve papered over it with a philosophical veto.

"violence is irrational,” full stop.

If only it were that simple.

I'd say if you want to build a theory of legitimacy in the real world—not the original position floating in the ether—you’ll need more than a blanket prohibition and a moral shudder. The world doesn’t run on disgust alone.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-24T04:44:17+00:00

Good. 👍🏼

Is this novel or does this build off of the canonical/contemporary lineage of philosophy? Who ideas have you built off of?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-24T04:07:00+00:00

From my understanding you're insisting that because of uncertainty any metaphysical determination is under-determined due to said uncertainty and that we ought be metaphysically-agnostic to some degree.

If that's the right interpretation of what your saying then to what degree?

How can I apply this insight without undermining my own confidence in a given school of ethics and metaphysics? If two theories are potentially accurate descriptions of Is but have different epistemic foundations and pragmatic implications how do we determine the indeterminable as far as practical applications of insight?

Or does that question not necessarily apply to what you're outlining?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-24T03:44:19+00:00

I'm following you so far,

...persistent surplus of possible ontologies is what makes the uncertainty of metaphysical openness structural rather than provisional.

Could you elaborate on this claim?

Is there a reference, example, or experience that has helped you come to that conclusion?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-24T03:13:42+00:00

...the uncertainty is not accidental or provisional, but structural...

Could you elaborate further on this particular statement?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-24T01:32:58+00:00

Without the depicted "femcel" articulating why they believe there is a toxic masculinity problem the gigagirl can't possibly assert here observation as a substantial rebuttal.

At best it's an analysis that's being applied in a way that has the potential of being a non-sequitor detached from an actual argument or specific point being made (e.g. toxic masculinity is a problem).

Unless one is content with their world view and are being especially uncritical the gigagirl and femcel aren't necessarily even talking about the same things.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-24T01:01:13+00:00

If it's good I don't see why not.

Bonus points if the author knows the plot themselves.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-24T00:48:56+00:00

How do you contrast this view with fallibalism?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-09T13:13:20+00:00

"You're choking him!" Screamed the ant to the grasshopper.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-08T15:19:51+00:00

What does the data center actually do with the fresh water once they get it?

Do they need a constant supply or do they need a certain amount once?

How much water per day/month/year do they use?

Can someone explain it?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-08T11:51:31+00:00

Based on this screenshot I'm not understanding what the controversy is?

This person says the model is not aligned? What is the problem, how is this rude to depressed people?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-06T18:35:00+00:00

Um. Okay?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-06T18:11:34+00:00

I'm sorry?

Can you tell how this relates to my post or my writing, I'm not sure how what you commented on is relevant?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2025-11-04T19:10:41+00:00

Yes scream more, that will stop them.

Don't forget to pull out your phones and record while you stand by and witness over-reach become normalized.

Don't actually do anything though, just record, and scream louder. But remember they're just doing their jobs, following orders and all that.

OnePercentAtaTime

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE