South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, thanks for laying that out so fully—it clarifies the roots of your position. But what you’re calling “realism” is still grounded in a fundamental asymmetry: that one set of people brought civilization, and the other must submit to it. That’s not a neutral observation—it’s a hierarchy, and it makes a moral claim, even if cloaked in historical description.

The Incas were an imperialist people. When they conquered a people, a region, a territory, they had a clever strategy: they would move them to another location in the empire so that their ‘ancestral connection’ to the land was broken. Then, their assimilation could be completed: as subjects of the empire. Now, on what basis can you tell me this was “wrong”, eh? What I wish to make clear that there was no “European category” to declare that what the Inca rulership did was wrong. My point? Your ideology, your operative ideals, are totally bound up in European categories of value. But specific ones, and rather late-coming ones. In a former age, only recently passed, the conquest and civilizing of southern African tribesmen would have been seen, nearly universally, as a necessary good.

The curious thing is that, in the modern South African paradigm, at a certain point the colonized, the imposed-upon, effectively clamored for more thorough imposition. That is, to be provided with schools to learn the basic grammar of European civilization. To be granted “rights” that (frankly) were not conceived as operative in any jurisprudential sense in their own cultures. They effectively said “Bring us into your circle of civilization”. Help us to gain more fully what you have or in any case give us what you have. And therein enters the trope “What you have derives from us. Give us (back) what is ours”.

These are all very curious and ironic parts-and-parcels of the modern situation that, when looked at with different eyes, reveal peculiar pictures of modern reality.

Again it is curious the position of American Blacks in our present. I just note the strange contradictions and ironies. But in my case I am quite familiar with the writing of Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X and a good deal of the political theory of Chomsky, Zinn and Galeano et al, so I see my own commentaries as an odd synthesis.

There is a devilish conundrum that a post-African (former slave, robbed from Africa’s shores) must face. Obviously I can never know ‘the black experience’ yet I have made an intellectual effort to do so. It can only be a difficult reality to face: What I was, where I was and what I had become (my former existence on those ‘shores’) is now past and unrecoverable. I was forced “to labor in the white man’s empire” and literally within a will that is not my own.

I have options: I can become a rebel and resist the process of (forced) assimilation which is essentially non-different from something slavery-like. And we all notice this in the unruly Blacks like the gangsta-rappers and the black hood. But actually it is far more nuanced and complex since, in fact, jazz and rock are rebel modes (there are a zillion examples). There are so many knots and weaves that they cannot ever be untied or unwoven. And we also note the Blacks who cooperate and excel. But though they may put a personalized twist on assimilation, it is still effectively just that.

What is the relationship of this analysis to the examination of social and political events in South Africa? In my view there certainly is a connection. There is a “deeper” analysis, an atypical one, that renders unusual insights.

The bottom line? (I will take a stab at it). After 30 years of rule — if the picture I receive is accurate and realistic — ‘they ‘(a gross generalization I know) show that they cannot rule themselves. Therefore, they will have to submit to an authority that can rule.

Further, those in the impoverished regions have no choice now but to cooperate with agency that can both rule and develop them. That is to say effectively: employ them. Channel their human resources (themselves) to productive ends.

Asymmetry is a fact of the universe, Mike. As is hierarchy. As is power. One can only hope that people can join forces enough to give assent to base-conditions that lead to prosperity and progress.

[BigMike]

Alexis, thanks for laying that out so fully—it clarifies the roots of your position. But what you’re calling “realism” is still grounded in a fundamental asymmetry: that one set of people brought civilization, and the other must submit to it. That’s not a neutral observation—it’s a hierarchy, and it makes a moral claim, even if cloaked in historical description.

The Incas were an imperialist people. When they conquered a people, a region, a territory, they had a clever strategy: they would move them to another location in the empire so that their ‘ancestral connection’ to the land was broken. Then, their assimilation could be completed: as subjects of the empire. Now, on what basis can you tell me this was “wrong”, eh? What I wish to make clear that there was no “European category” to declare that what the Inca rulership did was wrong. My point? Your ideology, your operative ideals, are totally bound up in European categories of value. But specific ones, and rather late-coming ones. In a former age, only recently passed, the conquest and civilizing of southern African tribesmen would have been seen, nearly universally, as a necessary good.

The curious thing is that, in the modern South African paradigm, at a certain point the colonized, the imposed-upon, effectively clamored for more thorough imposition. That is, to be provided with schools to learn the basic grammar of European civilization. To be granted “rights” that (frankly) were not conceived as operative in any jurisprudential sense in their own cultures. They effectively said “Bring us into your circle of civilization”. Help us to gain more fully what you have or in any case give us what you have. And therein enters the trope “What you have derives from us. Give us (back) what is ours”.

These are all very curious and ironic parts-and-parcels of the modern situation that, when looked at with different eyes, reveal peculiar pictures of modern reality.

Again it is curious the position of American Blacks in our present. I just note the strange contradictions and ironies. But in my case I am quite familiar with the writing of Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X and a good deal of the political theory of Chomsky, Zinn and Galeano et al, so I see my own commentaries as an odd synthesis.

There is a devilish conundrum that a post-African (former slave, robbed from Africa’s shores) must face. Obviously I can never know ‘the black experience’ yet I have made an intellectual effort to do so. It can only be a difficult reality to face: What I was, where I was and what I had become (my former existence on those ‘shores’) is now past and unrecoverable. I was forced “to labor in the white man’s empire” and literally within a will that is not my own.

I have options: I can become a rebel and resist the process of (forced) assimilation which is essentially non-different from something slavery-like. And we all notice this in the unruly Blacks like the gangsta-rappers and the black hood. But actually it is far more nuanced and complex since, in fact, jazz and rock are rebel modes (there are a zillion examples). There are so many knots and weaves that they cannot ever be untied or unwoven. And we also note the Blacks who cooperate and excel. But though they may put a personalized twist on assimilation, it is still effectively just that.

What is the relationship of this analysis to the examination of social and political events in South Africa? In my view there certainly is a connection. There is a “deeper” analysis, an atypical one, that renders unusual insights.

The bottom line? (I will take a stab at it). After 30 years of rule — if the picture I receive is accurate and realistic — ‘they ‘(a gross generalization I know) show that they cannot rule themselves. Therefore, they will have to submit to an authority that can rule.

Further, those in the impoverished regions have no choice now but to cooperate with agency that can both rule and develop them. That is to say effectively: employ them. Channel their human resources (themselves) to productive ends.

Asymmetry is a fact of the universe, Mike. As is hierarchy. As is power. One can only hope that people can join forces enough to give assent to base-conditions that lead to prosperity and progress.

Alexis, your mask of “realism” is just the old colonial superiority complex rebranded with a thesaurus. You speak of “assimilation,” “surrender,” and “productive ends” like you’re describing benevolent order—but what you’re actually pushing is domination dressed up as wisdom. It’s not nuance—it’s condescension soaked in historical amnesia.

You praise the Incas for cultural erasure, then pivot to moral relativism to justify European conquest, before pretending to be sympathetic to Black experience—only to conclude, smugly, that “they cannot rule themselves.” That’s not insight. That’s white-savior exceptionalism on a pedestal, wrapped in pseudo-philosophical self-flattery.

You cite Malcolm X, Chomsky, Davis—as if reading them gives you license to ignore them. Malcolm didn’t advocate “surrender to established will.” Davis didn’t write so you could declare whole peoples unfit for self-governance. And if you think quoting Zinn absolves you from repeating the very logic of the empires he criticized, then you’ve entirely missed the point.

Let’s be blunt: your bottom line is a call for submission—not cooperation, not mutual development—submission. That’s the same warped worldview that enslaved, colonized, and extracted under the guise of “civilizing.” And it’s dressed up here in the same arrogant paternalism that always thinks it knows what’s best “for them.”

You claim asymmetry is natural. Sure—so is gravity. But that doesn’t mean we stop fighting to level the field. Power isn’t its own justification. And neither is failure after 30 years of sabotaged governance, economic exclusion, and inherited debt. To stand back and say “they’ve proven unfit” is not an analysis—it’s a coward’s verdict.

What South Africa needs isn’t more sermons from the throne of superiority. It needs shared power, truth, investment—and the end of this tired fantasy that the only path to progress is beneath someone else's boot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, Mike, I think you are mistaken in how you take my realism perspectives. Simply put, you are driven by entire sets of very modern, and quite Marxism-inflected categories. You are totally free to do this and organize your ideologies as you see fit! I don’t have an argument there.

What I am doing (more than anything else) is laying out an alternative, interpretive view. And proposing clarification of what values we choose to align with. You do precisely this within what Acellafine defines as “wokism”.

My picture, my chosen value-set, establishes a type of condensation of those values and agreements required for civilization to occur and to progress. I am trying to clarify and simplify the basic issue of assent.

It is not that I praise the Incas. It is only that I make reference to a power-dynamic that operated in the world and outside of your categories.

I do not ‘justify’ European categories, but I do notice that they have become universalized. I explain what is going on in our present, and explanation is different than justification.

Neither do I ignore Davis or, for example, Malcolm. I try to explain their position as (as they realize) ex-slaves who have been assimilated into a system that is foreign to their being.

In my way of seeing what I attempt here is productive and helpful and I see what you are up to (in the larger sense) as unhelpful and non-productive. I believe that my realism, which is also underpinned with value-sets (that I can explain coherently), is an example of sober realism that helps clarify power-relations. It also gives us, gives one, the chance of making a rational, considered choices.

Let’s be blunt: your bottom line is a call for submission—not cooperation, not mutual development—submission. That’s the same warped worldview that enslaved, colonized, and extracted under the guise of “civilizing.” And it’s dressed up here in the same arrogant paternalism that always thinks it knows what’s best “for them.”

It is not surprising, given your varied opinions, that you would assign the term “paternalism” as a negative. I take it as a positive however. My sober and realistic orientation is a needed antidote to the ideological structure that is so embedded in you.

My view is necessarily binary as a starting point. We have to decide on what core values we honor, and then give our assent to them. Then, our will gets aligned with what we understand to be right and good.

You choose the word “submission” but I prefer to establish the question about what we give assent to. First comes the agreement (if one does agree) then the choice, the will, to give assent to.

What South Africa needs isn’t more sermons from the throne of superiority. It needs shared power, truth, investment—and the end of this tired fantasy that the only path to progress is beneath someone else's boot.

That is an absurd rendition of what, in essence, I am talking about. The boot part especially. However such a statement would necessarily flow from your ‘core predicates’.

[BigMike]

No, Mike, I think you are mistaken in how you take my realism perspectives. Simply put, you are driven by entire sets of very modern, and quite Marxism-inflected categories. You are totally free to do this and organize your ideologies as you see fit! I don’t have an argument there.

What I am doing (more than anything else) is laying out an alternative, interpretive view. And proposing clarification of what values we choose to align with. You do precisely this within what Acellafine defines as “wokism”.

My picture, my chosen value-set, establishes a type of condensation of those values and agreements required for civilization to occur and to progress. I am trying to clarify and simplify the basic issue of assent.

It is not that I praise the Incas. It is only that I make reference to a power-dynamic that operated in the world and outside of your categories.

I do not ‘justify’ European categories, but I do notice that they have become universalized. I explain what is going on in our present, and explanation is different than justification.

Neither do I ignore Davis or, for example, Malcolm. I try to explain their position as (as they realize) ex-slaves who have been assimilated into a system that is foreign to their being.

In my way of seeing what I attempt here is productive and helpful and I see what you are up to (in the larger sense) as unhelpful and non-productive. I believe that my realism, which is also underpinned with value-sets (that I can explain coherently), is an example of sober realism that helps clarify power-relations. It also gives us, gives one, the chance of making a rational, considered choices.

Let’s be blunt: your bottom line is a call for submission—not cooperation, not mutual development—submission. That’s the same warped worldview that enslaved, colonized, and extracted under the guise of “civilizing.” And it’s dressed up here in the same arrogant paternalism that always thinks it knows what’s best “for them.”

It is not surprising, given your varied opinions, that you would assign the term “paternalism” as a negative. I take it as a positive however. My sober and realistic orientation is a needed antidote to the ideological structure that is so embedded in you.

My view is necessarily binary as a starting point. We have to decide on what core values we honor, and then give our assent to them. Then, our will gets aligned with what we understand to be right and good.

You choose the word “submission” but I prefer to establish the question about what we give assent to. First comes the agreement (if one does agree) then the choice, the will, to give assent to.

What South Africa needs isn’t more sermons from the throne of superiority. It needs shared power, truth, investment—and the end of this tired fantasy that the only path to progress is beneath someone else's boot.

That is an absurd rendition of what, in essence, I am talking about. The boot part especially. However such a statement would necessarily flow from your ‘core predicates’.

Alexis, let’s not pretend your version of “realism” is just a neutral interpretive lens. You’re presenting a framework where “assent” to a dominant power structure—crafted, shaped, and still disproportionately controlled by those who once wielded conquest—is somehow the rational, enlightened, productive choice. You’re rebranding submission as maturity and paternalism as guidance. But dressing it up in philosophical language doesn’t make it less servile or less supremacist.

You say you don’t justify European categories—only observe that they’ve become universalized. But that’s a sleight of hand. If you notice that a value system rooted in conquest has spread like wildfire, and then argue that others must assent to it, you’re not just observing empire. You’re endorsing it. You’re saying, effectively: “It won, so bow to it.”

That’s not sober realism. That’s the logic of a bully backed by historical momentum.

And don’t think slipping from “submission” into “assent” softens the blow. The slave “assents” when survival requires it. The colonized “assents” when all other options are stripped. A coerced choice, made under asymmetrical power, isn’t an agreement—it’s the illusion of consent crafted by necessity.

You say my view is “unhelpful.” Of course it is—to your hierarchy. Because it doesn’t ask the poor, the excluded, or the colonized to thank the empire for building a road through their village. It asks the empire to step down from the pulpit and share the damn tools. To build together, not above.

You revere values like order, productivity, hierarchy. Fine. But when those are wielded to preserve inequality and demand loyalty to the system that forged it, that’s not clarity—it’s coercion. Civilization doesn’t need more calls for obedience. It needs people willing to question the assumptions baked into the system and finally stop mistaking power for wisdom.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You say my view is “unhelpful.” Of course it is—to your hierarchy. Because it doesn’t ask the poor, the excluded, or the colonized to thank the empire for building a road through their village. It asks the empire to step down from the pulpit and share the damn tools. To build together, not above.

You revere values like order, productivity, hierarchy. Fine. But when those are wielded to preserve inequality and demand loyalty to the system that forged it, that’s not clarity—it’s coercion. Civilization doesn’t need more calls for obedience. It needs people willing to question the assumptions baked into the system and finally stop mistaking power for wisdom.

Man, you really drank deep from the kool-aid jug!

What interests me is how you rewrite or translate into Modern Wokeese each clarifying statement that I make. I do understand however. I was (to put it colloquially) raised up in those interpretive categories.

You misunderstand my assertion about cooperation with civilized processes by framing it as non-resistance or submission to corporate abuse of power (the road through the village example). But that sort of underhanded framing is typical of people with the ultra-woke ideology you seem to subscribe to.

You revere values like order, productivity, hierarchy.

No, those are not values in themselves. I haven’t really spoken of what values I hold in esteem. I have been arguing against elements in your ideological framing mostly by offering a contrary way of seeing things.

The rest of what you write really is “virtue signaling” and may give you a sense of righteousness but it won’t help much with what South Africa (or my region) faces.

That’s my view anyway.

[Skepdick]

But when those are wielded to preserve inequality and demand loyalty to the system that forged it, that’s not clarity—it’s coercion.

It's no less coercive than the normative force of any social system which equates unequals.

Equality is blind and often jealous. For if we can't all be equal in prosperity then we'll all be equal in misery.

Either way - egalitarians will pat themselves on the back for having attained their highest ideal.

[BigMike]

Who Here Has Expressed Racist Attitudes—and Why It Matters

Let’s step back for a moment and look critically at what’s been expressed in this thread—not just the surface disagreements, but the deeper frameworks driving them. Specifically, let’s ask: Who has expressed racist attitudes here, and how do those attitudes tie to their underlying beliefs about free will and determinism?

This isn’t about name-calling. It’s about examining how ideas about race, justice, and responsibility are built—and how often they rely on outdated assumptions about individual agency.


Skepdick: Overt Racism, Weaponized Cynicism

Skepdick has openly used racial slurs and expressed hatred toward those he associates with “social justice.” He mocks efforts to address structural inequality and treats historical injustice as a joke. This isn’t mere “edgy realism”—it’s textbook dehumanization.

Despite occasionally referencing complexity and cause-effect chains, he ultimately defends existing hierarchies by ridiculing any attempt to redress them. He uses pseudo-determinist language as a shield but clearly believes in a selective form of free will: others are “losers” who failed; he, a supposed self-made man, succeeded.

Summary:
Overt racism
Selective free will believer: excuses his own advantage while dismissing structural causes behind others’ disadvantage.


Alexis Jacobi: Intellectualized Cultural Supremacy

Alexis refers to Black South Africans and other historically marginalized groups as “primitive” and culturally unfit to govern without external tutelage. He advocates for “assent” to a Western civilizational order, which he views as objectively superior.

Though expressed in philosophical language, this is a clear assertion of civilizational hierarchy. He sees resistance as futile and cooperation (submission) as the only rational path. His framework requires belief in free will: if people simply chose to align with superior values, they would succeed.

Summary:
Cultural racism disguised as realism
Free will-based worldview: responsibility lies with the individual or culture to choose the “right” path—ignoring historical coercion.


Accelafine: Reactionary Deflection and Denial

Accelafine dismisses historical injustice as irrelevant because “the people are dead.” She mocks structural analysis as “woke waffle” and repeatedly deflects any responsibility for present inequality. Her reasoning assumes that everyone starts equal and what happens after that is a matter of personal effort.

This is classic free will thinking: no structural causes, no inherited constraints—just individuals succeeding or failing based on their own choices.

Summary:
Denial of racism, but defends status quo built on it
Strong free will believer: blames others’ failure on their own inadequacy, not inherited disadvantage.


BigMike (myself): Determinist Humanism

I’ve argued consistently that injustice is not a function of personal failure, but of inherited structural imbalance. I don’t claim to have all the answers—but I refuse to pretend history doesn’t matter. I believe we must engage with complex systems of cause and consequence over time, and strive for corrections that increase fairness without repeating domination.

Summary:
No racist attitudes expressed
Determinist worldview: people don’t choose where they start, so justice means accounting for inherited conditions—not punishing them.


Conclusion: Free Will Is the Hidden Engine of Racism

Across the board, those who expressed racist or racially charged views share a core assumption: people deserve what they have. Whether wrapped in cynicism, cultural “realism,” or libertarian deflection, the underlying belief is always the same: people choose their fate.

But determinism tells a different story. It says that nobody chooses their birth, their parents, their education, or their starting point. In that light, blaming the poor or colonized for their position is not realism—it’s injustice masquerading as merit.

And calling for fairness isn’t “woke.”
It’s the only sane response to a world still reeling from centuries of cause and effect.


No one has the full solution. But refusing to engage until the entire world is perfect is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.

[FlashDangerpants]

Who Here Has Expressed Racist Attitudes—and Why It Matters

Let’s step back for a moment and look critically at what’s been expressed in this thread—not just the surface disagreements, but the deeper frameworks driving them. Specifically, let’s ask: Who has expressed racist attitudes here, and how do those attitudes tie to their underlying beliefs about free will and determinism?

This isn’t about name-calling. It’s about examining how ideas about race, justice, and responsibility are built—and how often they rely on outdated assumptions about individual agency.


Skepdick: Overt Racism, Weaponized Cynicism

Skepdick has openly used racial slurs and expressed hatred toward those he associates with “social justice.” He mocks efforts to address structural inequality and treats historical injustice as a joke. This isn’t mere “edgy realism”—it’s textbook dehumanization.

Despite occasionally referencing complexity and cause-effect chains, he ultimately defends existing hierarchies by ridiculing any attempt to redress them. He uses pseudo-determinist language as a shield but clearly believes in a selective form of free will: others are “losers” who failed; he, a supposed self-made man, succeeded.

Summary:
Overt racism
Selective free will believer: excuses his own advantage while dismissing structural causes behind others’ disadvantage.


Alexis Jacobi: Intellectualized Cultural Supremacy

Alexis refers to Black South Africans and other historically marginalized groups as “primitive” and culturally unfit to govern without external tutelage. He advocates for “assent” to a Western civilizational order, which he views as objectively superior.

Though expressed in philosophical language, this is a clear assertion of civilizational hierarchy. He sees resistance as futile and cooperation (submission) as the only rational path. His framework requires belief in free will: if people simply chose to align with superior values, they would succeed.

Summary:
Cultural racism disguised as realism
Free will-based worldview: responsibility lies with the individual or culture to choose the “right” path—ignoring historical coercion.


Accelafine: Reactionary Deflection and Denial

Accelafine dismisses historical injustice as irrelevant because “the people are dead.” She mocks structural analysis as “woke waffle” and repeatedly deflects any responsibility for present inequality. Her reasoning assumes that everyone starts equal and what happens after that is a matter of personal effort.

This is classic free will thinking: no structural causes, no inherited constraints—just individuals succeeding or failing based on their own choices.

Summary:
Denial of racism, but defends status quo built on it
Strong free will believer: blames others’ failure on their own inadequacy, not inherited disadvantage.


BigMike (myself): Determinist Humanism

I’ve argued consistently that injustice is not a function of personal failure, but of inherited structural imbalance. I don’t claim to have all the answers—but I refuse to pretend history doesn’t matter. I believe we must engage with complex systems of cause and consequence over time, and strive for corrections that increase fairness without repeating domination.

Summary:
No racist attitudes expressed
Determinist worldview: people don’t choose where they start, so justice means accounting for inherited conditions—not punishing them.


Conclusion: Free Will Is the Hidden Engine of Racism

Across the board, those who expressed racist or racially charged views share a core assumption: people deserve what they have. Whether wrapped in cynicism, cultural “realism,” or libertarian deflection, the underlying belief is always the same: people choose their fate.

But determinism tells a different story. It says that nobody chooses their birth, their parents, their education, or their starting point. In that light, blaming the poor or colonized for their position is not realism—it’s injustice masquerading as merit.

And calling for fairness isn’t “woke.”
It’s the only sane response to a world still reeling from centuries of cause and effect.


No one has the full solution. But refusing to engage until the entire world is perfect is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.

When Jacobi says "demographics is destiny" he means it in an entirely racist sense, he believes in racial destiny, that's not free will. Accelafine and Skepdick tend to write whatever they think will offend you, this is central to their problematic conflict-driven personalities, racial slurs are just part of the game. Accelafine has spent months being your determinism cheerleader, you only conclude she is a free will type because you don't like her. There's nothing at all to stop a determinist being a racist.

Nobody except you really defines themself by this free will/predestinarian bollocks that you are obsessed with. Most people accept some degree of determinism when looking at the world one way, and less when they look at it another.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick: Overt Racism, Weaponized Cynicism

Skepdick has openly used racial slurs and expressed hatred toward those he associates with “social justice.” He mocks efforts to address structural inequality and treats historical injustice as a joke. This isn’t mere “edgy realism”—it’s textbook dehumanization.

Despite occasionally referencing complexity and cause-effect chains, he ultimately defends existing hierarchies by ridiculing any attempt to redress them. He uses pseudo-determinist language as a shield but clearly believes in a selective form of free will: others are “losers” who failed; he, a supposed self-made man, succeeded.

The use of racial slurs doesn't make me a racist; you see. Racism would make me racist. And simply calling you a social justice nigger isn't racism. Since I am not really expressing any attitude towards any races in general.

I am only expressing an attitude towards an individual. You.

On the other hand your behaviour has deeply racist undertones. Asserting intellectual superiority and masquerading it behind politeness and goodwill to the aid of poor Africans. Tell me about hierarchy while pretending to be superior.

Could this just be textbook sanctimony 101? In your self-righteous worldview it's actually impossible for you to be the racist.

What you are doing (sitting your ass in a chair, typing words on a keyboard) isn't the sort of stuff that makes the world better.
It's the sort of stuff that makes you feel good about doing nothing. Empathy is cheap dopamine.

Also for the 10th time. I am not dehumanizing you. I am simply pointing out that you are a trash human.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick tend to write whatever they think will offend you, this is central to their problematic conflict-driven personalities

Oh yeah... it's totally my "personality" (the character I put on when visiting Rome) that's problematic.

It's totally not the silly philosophical tradition built upon 3000 years of unresolved intellectual conflict.

The dysfunction is systemic, but instead of challenging the failures of philosophy you'd rather go for the low-hanging fruit of attacking the personification of a dysfunctional tradition that makes "conflict" more palatable under the label of "dialectic".

[accelafine]

Who Here Has Expressed Racist Attitudes—and Why It Matters

Let’s step back for a moment and look critically at what’s been expressed in this thread—not just the surface disagreements, but the deeper frameworks driving them. Specifically, let’s ask: Who has expressed racist attitudes here, and how do those attitudes tie to their underlying beliefs about free will and determinism?

This isn’t about name-calling. It’s about examining how ideas about race, justice, and responsibility are built—and how often they rely on outdated assumptions about individual agency.


Skepdick: Overt Racism, Weaponized Cynicism

Skepdick has openly used racial slurs and expressed hatred toward those he associates with “social justice.” He mocks efforts to address structural inequality and treats historical injustice as a joke. This isn’t mere “edgy realism”—it’s textbook dehumanization.

Despite occasionally referencing complexity and cause-effect chains, he ultimately defends existing hierarchies by ridiculing any attempt to redress them. He uses pseudo-determinist language as a shield but clearly believes in a selective form of free will: others are “losers” who failed; he, a supposed self-made man, succeeded.

Summary:
Overt racism
Selective free will believer: excuses his own advantage while dismissing structural causes behind others’ disadvantage.


Alexis Jacobi: Intellectualized Cultural Supremacy

Alexis refers to Black South Africans and other historically marginalized groups as “primitive” and culturally unfit to govern without external tutelage. He advocates for “assent” to a Western civilizational order, which he views as objectively superior.

Though expressed in philosophical language, this is a clear assertion of civilizational hierarchy. He sees resistance as futile and cooperation (submission) as the only rational path. His framework requires belief in free will: if people simply chose to align with superior values, they would succeed.

Summary:
Cultural racism disguised as realism
Free will-based worldview: responsibility lies with the individual or culture to choose the “right” path—ignoring historical coercion.


Accelafine: Reactionary Deflection and Denial

Accelafine dismisses historical injustice as irrelevant because “the people are dead.” She mocks structural analysis as “woke waffle” and repeatedly deflects any responsibility for present inequality. Her reasoning assumes that everyone starts equal and what happens after that is a matter of personal effort.

This is classic free will thinking: no structural causes, no inherited constraints—just individuals succeeding or failing based on their own choices.

Summary:
Denial of racism, but defends status quo built on it
Strong free will believer: blames others’ failure on their own inadequacy, not inherited disadvantage.


BigMike (myself): Determinist Humanism

I’ve argued consistently that injustice is not a function of personal failure, but of inherited structural imbalance. I don’t claim to have all the answers—but I refuse to pretend history doesn’t matter. I believe we must engage with complex systems of cause and consequence over time, and strive for corrections that increase fairness without repeating domination.

Summary:
No racist attitudes expressed
Determinist worldview: people don’t choose where they start, so justice means accounting for inherited conditions—not punishing them.


Conclusion: Free Will Is the Hidden Engine of Racism

Across the board, those who expressed racist or racially charged views share a core assumption: people deserve what they have. Whether wrapped in cynicism, cultural “realism,” or libertarian deflection, the underlying belief is always the same: people choose their fate.

But determinism tells a different story. It says that nobody chooses their birth, their parents, their education, or their starting point. In that light, blaming the poor or colonized for their position is not realism—it’s injustice masquerading as merit.

And calling for fairness isn’t “woke.”
It’s the only sane response to a world still reeling from centuries of cause and effect.


No one has the full solution. But refusing to engage until the entire world is perfect is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.

So sad that your expertise in using AI instead of doing your own writing initially gave the illusion of intelligence. It turns out that you are just a lazy fraud with no reading comprehension skills whatsoever. All you do is make up your own crap about what others have allegedly 'said'. Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm a 'free will believer' (and a 'strong' one to boot)? That's your most bizarre claim yet. Are you (I mean 'is AI') confusing me with someone else??
The biggest racist on here is you but you are too vain and lacking in self awareness to see it.
You are a complete waste of time.

ps. You are not a determinist's butt-hole. Think about it.

[accelafine]

''Summary:
No racist attitudes expressed
Determinist worldview: people don’t choose where they start, so justice means accounting for inherited conditions—not punishing them.''

This is too funny

[BigMike]

Who Here Has Expressed Racist Attitudes—and Why It Matters

Let’s step back for a moment and look critically at what’s been expressed in this thread—not just the surface disagreements, but the deeper frameworks driving them. Specifically, let’s ask: Who has expressed racist attitudes here, and how do those attitudes tie to their underlying beliefs about free will and determinism?

This isn’t about name-calling. It’s about examining how ideas about race, justice, and responsibility are built—and how often they rely on outdated assumptions about individual agency.


Skepdick: Overt Racism, Weaponized Cynicism

Skepdick has openly used racial slurs and expressed hatred toward those he associates with “social justice.” He mocks efforts to address structural inequality and treats historical injustice as a joke. This isn’t mere “edgy realism”—it’s textbook dehumanization.

Despite occasionally referencing complexity and cause-effect chains, he ultimately defends existing hierarchies by ridiculing any attempt to redress them. He uses pseudo-determinist language as a shield but clearly believes in a selective form of free will: others are “losers” who failed; he, a supposed self-made man, succeeded.

Summary:
Overt racism
Selective free will believer: excuses his own advantage while dismissing structural causes behind others’ disadvantage.


Alexis Jacobi: Intellectualized Cultural Supremacy

Alexis refers to Black South Africans and other historically marginalized groups as “primitive” and culturally unfit to govern without external tutelage. He advocates for “assent” to a Western civilizational order, which he views as objectively superior.

Though expressed in philosophical language, this is a clear assertion of civilizational hierarchy. He sees resistance as futile and cooperation (submission) as the only rational path. His framework requires belief in free will: if people simply chose to align with superior values, they would succeed.

Summary:
Cultural racism disguised as realism
Free will-based worldview: responsibility lies with the individual or culture to choose the “right” path—ignoring historical coercion.


Accelafine: Reactionary Deflection and Denial

Accelafine dismisses historical injustice as irrelevant because “the people are dead.” She mocks structural analysis as “woke waffle” and repeatedly deflects any responsibility for present inequality. Her reasoning assumes that everyone starts equal and what happens after that is a matter of personal effort.

This is classic free will thinking: no structural causes, no inherited constraints—just individuals succeeding or failing based on their own choices.

Summary:
Denial of racism, but defends status quo built on it
Strong free will believer: blames others’ failure on their own inadequacy, not inherited disadvantage.


BigMike (myself): Determinist Humanism

I’ve argued consistently that injustice is not a function of personal failure, but of inherited structural imbalance. I don’t claim to have all the answers—but I refuse to pretend history doesn’t matter. I believe we must engage with complex systems of cause and consequence over time, and strive for corrections that increase fairness without repeating domination.

Summary:
No racist attitudes expressed
Determinist worldview: people don’t choose where they start, so justice means accounting for inherited conditions—not punishing them.


Conclusion: Free Will Is the Hidden Engine of Racism

Across the board, those who expressed racist or racially charged views share a core assumption: people deserve what they have. Whether wrapped in cynicism, cultural “realism,” or libertarian deflection, the underlying belief is always the same: people choose their fate.

But determinism tells a different story. It says that nobody chooses their birth, their parents, their education, or their starting point. In that light, blaming the poor or colonized for their position is not realism—it’s injustice masquerading as merit.

And calling for fairness isn’t “woke.”
It’s the only sane response to a world still reeling from centuries of cause and effect.


No one has the full solution. But refusing to engage until the entire world is perfect is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.

When Jacobi says "demographics is destiny" he means it in an entirely racist sense, he believes in racial destiny, that's not free will. Accelafine and Skepdick tend to write whatever they think will offend you, this is central to their problematic conflict-driven personalities, racial slurs are just part of the game. Accelafine has spent months being your determinism cheerleader, you only conclude she is a free will type because you don't like her. There's nothing at all to stop a determinist being a racist.

Nobody except you really defines themself by this free will/predestinarian bollocks that you are obsessed with. Most people accept some degree of determinism when looking at the world one way, and less when they look at it another.

Flash, fair point—let me ask you this though:

How do you interpret accelafine’s latest post, where she quoted my summary—“No racist attitudes expressed / Determinist worldview: people don’t choose where they start…”—and responded only with:

“This is too funny ”

What exactly do you think she finds so hilarious?

Is it the idea that racism should be identified and called out?
Is it the notion that injustice stems from inherited structural imbalance?
Or is it just the refusal to center blame on the disadvantaged that strikes her as “woke comedy”?

I’m not asking rhetorically. If she’s mocking the idea that justice requires accounting for unequal starting conditions, then I’d argue that’s not just a reactionary impulse, it’s tied to the belief that everyone is responsible for their position in life—and that’s the hallmark of a free will framework, even if she doesn’t articulate it that way.

Now, you say she's been a determinism “cheerleader”—and fair enough, she might claim that. But as you know, people are full of contradictions. Cheering for determinism while simultaneously laughing off its ethical implications is like praising science while denying its conclusions when inconvenient. That’s not determinism—it’s opportunism.

You also say “nobody defines themselves” by this stuff. I’d say: not overtly. But when people defend inherited hierarchies, mock efforts to level the field, or reject the causal roots of inequality—they’re acting out a worldview. Whether they name it or not, it matters.

That’s what I’m trying to unpack. And I’m still up for honest conversation about it—if anyone else is.

[Skepdick]

You also say “nobody defines themselves” by this stuff. I’d say: not overtly. But when people defend inherited hierarchies, mock efforts to level the field, or reject the causal roots of inequality—they’re acting out a worldview. Whether they name it or not, it matters.

None of that's necessarily true, wanker.

It's just the story you have to tell to continue larping as the good guy in your story.

And if we are to judge you by your own yardstick, you are essentially revealing your own values: you much prefer to posture and signal virtue than to be virtuous.

That’s what I’m trying to unpack. And I’m still up for honest conversation about it—if anyone else is.

This is text-book psychological splitting.... You've already painted yourself as the virtuous in the dialogue.

Your defence mechanisms do not permit the possibility that virtuous action can result in immoral outcomes. The road to hell is paved with best intentions and all that jazz.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, fair point—let me ask you this though:

How do you interpret accelafine’s latest post, where she quoted my summary—“No racist attitudes expressed / Determinist worldview: people don’t choose where they start…”—and responded only with:

“This is too funny ”

What exactly do you think she finds so hilarious?

I think she's a loon and I don't worry much about her specific intent with any individual post. If she thinks she's getting under your skin, that's normally when she breaks out the emoticon spam. Her go-to move is always to accuse you of hypocrisy, usually for something that she has accused you of being like "kind" that you never adopted as a self-description.

Honestly, the glorious 5 star reviews you leave for yourself at every opportunity do invite some of that though.

Is it the idea that racism should be identified and called out?
Is it the notion that injustice stems from inherited structural imbalance?
Or is it just the refusal to center blame on the disadvantaged that strikes her as “woke comedy”?

She's a bit racist and she hates being called on it, and she has dedicated and rededicated her declining years to complaining about that. It's not really necessary to look deeper than that, she doesn't have depths.

I’m not asking rhetorically. If she’s mocking the idea that justice requires accounting for unequal starting conditions, then I’d argue that’s not just a reactionary impulse, it’s tied to the belief that everyone is responsible for their position in life—and that’s the hallmark of a free will framework, even if she doesn’t articulate it that way.

Sure, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem must be a nail, right? All you really have going for you is the determinism thing. Accelafine might not be the only one who is a tiny bit shallow in this thread.

Now, you say she's been a determinism “cheerleader”—and fair enough, she might claim that. But as you know, people are full of contradictions. Cheering for determinism while simultaneously laughing off its ethical implications is like praising science while denying its conclusions when inconvenient. That’s not determinism—it’s opportunism.

Yeah, she thrives on conflict and she seems to think you have an elegant way of insulting people, that's why she liked you. Don't read too much into it. Cognitively, she can side with the determinists in a debate, but she doesn't actually care about philosophy or entailments, she cares about name calling. If it's you against everyone then siding with you gives her more opportunity to call people names than siding with the majority does.

You also say “nobody defines themselves” by this stuff. I’d say: not overtly. But when people defend inherited hierarchies, mock efforts to level the field, or reject the causal roots of inequality—they’re acting out a worldview. Whether they name it or not, it matters.

That’s what I’m trying to unpack. And I’m still up for honest conversation about it—if anyone else is.

Well you insist on defining everything this way. Nobody else does. I'd invite you to think more about that, but you would just blame it on determinism, you don't have any other moves.