South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[BigMike]

Why not the other way around? For example a free-willer may expect everyone to have the same mental abilities, whereas a determinist may claim that in Africa the average IQ is 20+ point lower, so they are determined to be mentally inferior. It's getting old that he/it thinks that every problem in the world is caused by free will and the solution to all of them is determinism.

Atla, that’s a fair challenge—so let’s unpack it honestly.

You’re absolutely right that determinism can be misused—just like any framework. If someone claims determinism proves certain groups are “mentally inferior,” they’re not applying determinism; they’re abusing it to smuggle in a hierarchy they’ve already decided on. That’s not a causal analysis—it’s biological essentialism, dressed up in scientific language.

But here’s the difference: true determinism, rooted in physics and systems thinking, doesn’t stop at surface-level traits like IQ scores. It demands we ask: why are there disparities in test results? What caused the environmental, nutritional, educational, and systemic conditions that shape those outcomes?

Determinism, when applied rigorously, doesn’t say “they’re born this way.” It says “nothing happens without a cause.” And that includes the long history of exploitation, colonialism, trauma, and inequality that shaped global disparities—including in Africa.

So no—I’m not saying determinism solves everything. I’m saying it forces us to stop blaming people for conditions they didn’t create. And that shift in perspective is key to building systems that are fairer, more humane, and more grounded in reality.

Free will thinking, by contrast, too often assumes: “they chose this.” And that’s how racism, classism, and cruelty get justified.

So it’s not that determinism is a magic solution. It’s that free will is often the hidden fuel behind moral judgment, blame, and systemic neglect. That’s worth calling out.

You're not a determinist then, your reply seems to be once again AI-generated, and AI is always politically correct. Determinists can absolutely arrive at the view that a group is mentally inferior compared to another group.

"True determinism" looks at all causes. Not just at environmental, nutritional, educational, and systemic conditions, you're acting like a free-willer. But also at genetical causes, yes according to determinism different groups can absolutely be born with different average IQs. This way determinism can "prove" certain aspects of racism.

Atla, I’m not denying that genetics plays a role in cognitive traits—of course it does. But invoking genetic determinism to justify racial hierarchies is not an honest application of determinism; it’s scientific reductionism weaponized to prop up preexisting bias.

Let’s clarify two things:


1. Genetics is part of the deterministic chain—but not the end of it.

Yes, determinism includes genetic factors. But deterministic thinking doesn’t stop at “Group X has lower average IQ.” It pushes us to ask:

• What shaped those gene pools?
• What selection pressures operated over millennia?
• How have nutrition, trauma, colonization, disease, and educational access influenced gene expression (epigenetics), brain development, and test performance?

If you stop at “average IQ difference = proof of inferiority,” you’re not doing determinism. You’re doing lazy essentialism.

2. IQ is not a fixed measure of “worth” or “intelligence.”

IQ tests measure performance on certain tasks—tasks shaped by Western education systems, language, logic traditions, and even test familiarity. Deterministically speaking, differences in outcomes reflect differences in input—not inherent value.

Even leading cognitive scientists like Robert Sapolsky, who defends hard determinism, warns against using IQ disparities as a moral or political cudgel.

---

And let’s not ignore this:

Every time in history someone used “group IQ” to justify inequality, it wasn’t followed by neutral policy or scientific humility. It was followed by:

• Segregation
• Eugenics
• Sterilization
• Genocide

That’s not a coincidence. It’s how bad determinism—stripped of nuance and stripped of empathy—gets used to dress racism up as science.

---

You’re right: determinism doesn’t guarantee kindness or justice. But it removes the excuse of blame. And once blame is gone, we’re forced to build systems around support, opportunity, and truth—not condemnation and hierarchy.

If that’s politically correct, fine. It’s also scientifically sound, historically aware, and morally responsible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re right: determinism doesn’t guarantee kindness or justice. But it removes the excuse of blame. And once blame is gone, we’re forced to build systems around support, opportunity, and truth—not condemnation and hierarchy.

Holy crap! How much Kool-Aid do you stock in the pantries of your mind!?

Determinism necessarily could not care about kindness nor justice.

Both kindness and justice are brought into the world by choices made after examination of hard, determined nature (i.e. ‘reality’).

Kindness and justice are bound up with metaphysical notions right across the board.

Determinism (as social and political theory) would logically imitate nature’s essential indifference to the metaphysical categories of kindness and justice.

[Atla]

Atla, I’m not denying that genetics plays a role in cognitive traits—of course it does. But invoking genetic determinism to justify racial hierarchies is not an honest application of determinism; it’s scientific reductionism weaponized to prop up preexisting bias.

Let’s clarify two things:


1. Genetics is part of the deterministic chain—but not the end of it.

Yes, determinism includes genetic factors. But deterministic thinking doesn’t stop at “Group X has lower average IQ.” It pushes us to ask:
What shaped those gene pools?
What selection pressures operated over millennia?
How have nutrition, trauma, colonization, disease, and educational access influenced gene expression (epigenetics), brain development, and test performance?
If you stop at “average IQ difference = proof of inferiority,” you’re not doing determinism. You’re doing lazy essentialism.

Nonsense, you are simply going back further in the causal chains in order to avoid looking at the state of the world now. Why not go all the way back to the Big Bang then? You choose a rather arbitrary number of steps back because you have a (good or bad) agenda, not because that number of steps is implicit in determinism.

2. IQ is not a fixed measure of “worth” or “intelligence.”

IQ tests measure performance on certain tasks—tasks shaped by Western education systems, language, logic traditions, and even test familiarity. Deterministically speaking, differences in outcomes reflect differences in input—not inherent value.

Even leading cognitive scientists like Robert Sapolsky, who defends hard determinism, warns against using IQ disparities as a moral or political cudgel.

That's his take, but determinism doesn't tell us what to use and what not to use as a moral or political cudgel.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your moral philosophy. I'm only saying that a lot of the stuff you attribute to determinism is just part of your moral philosophy, not part of determinism itself.

And let’s not ignore this:

Every time in history someone used “group IQ” to justify inequality, it wasn’t followed by neutral policy or scientific humility. It was followed by:
Segregation
Eugenics
Sterilization
Genocide
That’s not a coincidence. It’s how bad determinism—stripped of nuance and stripped of empathy—gets used to dress racism up as science.

Determinism itself has nothing to do with empathy.

You’re right: determinism doesn’t guarantee kindness or justice. But it removes the excuse of blame. And once blame is gone, we’re forced to build systems around support, opportunity, and truth—not condemnation and hierarchy.

If that’s politically correct, fine. It’s also scientifically sound, historically aware, and morally responsible.

Determinism doesn't remove the excuse of blame (only removes blame based on free will). And what you are saying is NOT scientifically sound. To me it just looks like politically correct AI talk.

[BigMike]

Atla, I’m not denying that genetics plays a role in cognitive traits—of course it does. But invoking genetic determinism to justify racial hierarchies is not an honest application of determinism; it’s scientific reductionism weaponized to prop up preexisting bias.

Let’s clarify two things:


1. Genetics is part of the deterministic chain—but not the end of it.

Yes, determinism includes genetic factors. But deterministic thinking doesn’t stop at “Group X has lower average IQ.” It pushes us to ask:
What shaped those gene pools?
What selection pressures operated over millennia?
How have nutrition, trauma, colonization, disease, and educational access influenced gene expression (epigenetics), brain development, and test performance?
If you stop at “average IQ difference = proof of inferiority,” you’re not doing determinism. You’re doing lazy essentialism.

Nonsense, you are simply going back further in the causal chains in order to avoid looking at the state of the world now. Why not go all the way back to the Big Bang then? You choose a rather arbitrary number of steps back because you have a (good or bad) agenda, not because that number of steps is implicit in determinism.

2. IQ is not a fixed measure of “worth” or “intelligence.”

IQ tests measure performance on certain tasks—tasks shaped by Western education systems, language, logic traditions, and even test familiarity. Deterministically speaking, differences in outcomes reflect differences in input—not inherent value.

Even leading cognitive scientists like Robert Sapolsky, who defends hard determinism, warns against using IQ disparities as a moral or political cudgel.

That's his take, but determinism doesn't tell us what to use and what not to use as a moral or political cudgel.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your moral philosophy. I'm only saying that a lot of the stuff you attribute to determinism is just part of your moral philosophy, not part of determinism itself.

And let’s not ignore this:

Every time in history someone used “group IQ” to justify inequality, it wasn’t followed by neutral policy or scientific humility. It was followed by:
Segregation
Eugenics
Sterilization
Genocide
That’s not a coincidence. It’s how bad determinism—stripped of nuance and stripped of empathy—gets used to dress racism up as science.

Determinism itself has nothing to do with empathy.

You’re right: determinism doesn’t guarantee kindness or justice. But it removes the excuse of blame. And once blame is gone, we’re forced to build systems around support, opportunity, and truth—not condemnation and hierarchy.

If that’s politically correct, fine. It’s also scientifically sound, historically aware, and morally responsible.

Determinism doesn't remove the excuse of blame (only removes blame based on free will). And what you are saying is NOT scientifically sound. To me it just looks like politically correct AI talk.

Atla, I think you’re conflating two very different things: what determinism is versus what it implies when taken seriously and applied consistently to social policy and moral frameworks. You’re right that determinism, by itself, doesn’t prescribe empathy, morality, or justice. It simply asserts that all effects have causes—including behavior, intelligence, crime, poverty, and inequality. But once that’s accepted, the rational implication is that blame, punishment, and moral condemnation rooted in free will thinking become intellectually dishonest. That’s not political correctness—it’s a logical consequence.

You accuse me of “going back further in the causal chain to avoid the state of the world now.” But that’s precisely what determinism requires: to look beyond superficial present outcomes and ask what caused them. You say I could go back to the Big Bang—sure, in theory—but the point isn’t to retreat into cosmic abstraction. It’s to locate the relevant proximate causes that still shape lives today: poverty, colonization, trauma, exclusion, policy design. Those causes still exist and still influence measurable outcomes like IQ and education levels. You can’t claim to be applying determinism and then arbitrarily decide that the past doesn’t matter once it becomes inconvenient.

On IQ: yes, it’s one data point. But treating it as a hard ceiling on human potential, especially across racial or cultural groups, is intellectually lazy and morally dangerous. We’ve seen what happens when that mindset becomes policy—and history gives us no reason to trust its outcomes. Determinism doesn’t mandate empathy, but it certainly undermines the justifications for cruelty. If someone understands that a person didn’t choose their genetics, their family, their school, or their trauma, and still insists on treating them with contempt or exclusion, that’s no longer a moral failure—it’s deliberate indifference to cause and effect.

And finally, calling this “AI talk” doesn’t invalidate the argument. It only signals discomfort with a worldview that refuses to use determinism selectively—especially when doing so protects inherited power. I’m not saying determinism equals kindness. I’m saying determinism requires honesty, and that honesty should make cruelty and judgment a lot harder to justify. If that rubs you the wrong way, fine. But at least argue against the ideas—not the voice delivering them.

[Atla]

Atla, I’m not denying that genetics plays a role in cognitive traits—of course it does. But invoking genetic determinism to justify racial hierarchies is not an honest application of determinism; it’s scientific reductionism weaponized to prop up preexisting bias.

Let’s clarify two things:


1. Genetics is part of the deterministic chain—but not the end of it.

Yes, determinism includes genetic factors. But deterministic thinking doesn’t stop at “Group X has lower average IQ.” It pushes us to ask:
What shaped those gene pools?
What selection pressures operated over millennia?
How have nutrition, trauma, colonization, disease, and educational access influenced gene expression (epigenetics), brain development, and test performance?
If you stop at “average IQ difference = proof of inferiority,” you’re not doing determinism. You’re doing lazy essentialism.

Nonsense, you are simply going back further in the causal chains in order to avoid looking at the state of the world now. Why not go all the way back to the Big Bang then? You choose a rather arbitrary number of steps back because you have a (good or bad) agenda, not because that number of steps is implicit in determinism.

2. IQ is not a fixed measure of “worth” or “intelligence.”

IQ tests measure performance on certain tasks—tasks shaped by Western education systems, language, logic traditions, and even test familiarity. Deterministically speaking, differences in outcomes reflect differences in input—not inherent value.

Even leading cognitive scientists like Robert Sapolsky, who defends hard determinism, warns against using IQ disparities as a moral or political cudgel.

That's his take, but determinism doesn't tell us what to use and what not to use as a moral or political cudgel.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your moral philosophy. I'm only saying that a lot of the stuff you attribute to determinism is just part of your moral philosophy, not part of determinism itself.

And let’s not ignore this:

Every time in history someone used “group IQ” to justify inequality, it wasn’t followed by neutral policy or scientific humility. It was followed by:
Segregation
Eugenics
Sterilization
Genocide
That’s not a coincidence. It’s how bad determinism—stripped of nuance and stripped of empathy—gets used to dress racism up as science.

Determinism itself has nothing to do with empathy.

You’re right: determinism doesn’t guarantee kindness or justice. But it removes the excuse of blame. And once blame is gone, we’re forced to build systems around support, opportunity, and truth—not condemnation and hierarchy.

If that’s politically correct, fine. It’s also scientifically sound, historically aware, and morally responsible.

Determinism doesn't remove the excuse of blame (only removes blame based on free will). And what you are saying is NOT scientifically sound. To me it just looks like politically correct AI talk.

Atla, I think you’re conflating two very different things: what determinism is versus what it implies when taken seriously and applied consistently to social policy and moral frameworks. You’re right that determinism, by itself, doesn’t prescribe empathy, morality, or justice. It simply asserts that all effects have causes—including behavior, intelligence, crime, poverty, and inequality. But once that’s accepted, the rational implication is that blame, punishment, and moral condemnation rooted in free will thinking become intellectually dishonest. That’s not political correctness—it’s a logical consequence.

You accuse me of “going back further in the causal chain to avoid the state of the world now.” But that’s precisely what determinism requires: to look beyond superficial present outcomes and ask what caused them. You say I could go back to the Big Bang—sure, in theory—but the point isn’t to retreat into cosmic abstraction. It’s to locate the relevant proximate causes that still shape lives today: poverty, colonization, trauma, exclusion, policy design. Those causes still exist and still influence measurable outcomes like IQ and education levels. You can’t claim to be applying determinism and then arbitrarily decide that the past doesn’t matter once it becomes inconvenient.

On IQ: yes, it’s one data point. But treating it as a hard ceiling on human potential, especially across racial or cultural groups, is intellectually lazy and morally dangerous. We’ve seen what happens when that mindset becomes policy—and history gives us no reason to trust its outcomes. Determinism doesn’t mandate empathy, but it certainly undermines the justifications for cruelty. If someone understands that a person didn’t choose their genetics, their family, their school, or their trauma, and still insists on treating them with contempt or exclusion, that’s no longer a moral failure—it’s deliberate indifference to cause and effect.

And finally, calling this “AI talk” doesn’t invalidate the argument. It only signals discomfort with a worldview that refuses to use determinism selectively—especially when doing so protects inherited power. I’m not saying determinism equals kindness. I’m saying determinism requires honesty, and that honesty should make cruelty and judgment a lot harder to justify. If that rubs you the wrong way, fine. But at least argue against the ideas—not the voice delivering them.

Another AI-generated response, not actually engaging with what I said, while accusing me of that. Again: a determinist can for example also hold the view that past causal chains have shaped some groups to be mentally inferior today, compared to some other groups. Thus "proving" some aspects of racism.

(Wonder what a debate between VA and Mike would look like, with AI assistance enabled.)

[BigMike]

Another AI-generated response, not actually engaging with what I said, while accusing me of that. Again: a determinist can for example also hold the view that past causal chains have shaped some groups to be mentally inferior today, compared to some other groups. Thus "proving" some aspects of racism.

(Wonder what a debate between VA and Mike would look like, with AI assistance enabled.)

Atla, none of my posts are AI-generated or assisted. Every word comes directly from me. You’re free to disagree with my reasoning, but dismissing it as “AI talk” is just a way to avoid dealing with the argument. I’ve engaged with your points—now try engaging with mine.

[accelafine]

wank wank...

You insult me every chance you get, and usually when I'm not even engaging with you, so yeah, hypocrite is the obvious word to spring to mind. You are just too thick and conceited to understand my posts. That's not my problem.
It's really weird the way certain men on here will whine endlessly about how 'mean and insulting' I am, while at the same time getting their snide little jabs in at every chance they get but are generally too cowardly to say them directly to me. I rarely address you, so spare me your constant whining about how mean I am to you.
Imagine being so obsessed with another poster that you have entire conversations with others ABOUT that poster. It's kind of pathetic and comes across as school dorm gossip. Man up you little crybaby. Your whiny drivel is embarrassing.

[accelafine]

Another AI-generated response, not actually engaging with what I said, while accusing me of that. Again: a determinist can for example also hold the view that past causal chains have shaped some groups to be mentally inferior today, compared to some other groups. Thus "proving" some aspects of racism.

(Wonder what a debate between VA and Mike would look like, with AI assistance enabled.)

Atla, none of my posts are AI-generated or assisted. Every word comes directly from me. You’re free to disagree with my reasoning, but dismissing it as “AI talk” is just a way to avoid dealing with the argument. I’ve engaged with your points—now try engaging with mine.

We believe you Either that, or some sophisticated prose editing tool-- which is probably AI anyway. Own your typos or edit them out yourself. Sure you will miss the odd one. They are what make us human

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re right: determinism doesn’t guarantee kindness or justice. But it removes the excuse of blame. And once blame is gone, we’re forced to build systems around support, opportunity, and truth—not condemnation and hierarchy.

If that’s politically correct, fine. It’s also scientifically sound, historically aware, and morally responsible.

That is certainly politically correct. And as such it has nothing to do with any principle latent in determinism.

What I think you have done is (finally!) revealed what really motivates your concerns: a choice to privilege what you call kindness and justice. You were free to choose it and you did!

[BigMike]

You’re right: determinism doesn’t guarantee kindness or justice. But it removes the excuse of blame. And once blame is gone, we’re forced to build systems around support, opportunity, and truth—not condemnation and hierarchy.

If that’s politically correct, fine. It’s also scientifically sound, historically aware, and morally responsible.

That is certainly politically correct. And as such it has nothing to do with any principle latent in determinism.

What I think you have done is (finally!) revealed what really motivates your concerns: a choice to privilege what you call kindness and justice. You were free to choose it and you did!

Alexis—you haven’t been paying attention.

I’ve already addressed this exact point, weeks ago. I said then—and I’ll repeat now—that determinism is fully compatible with both brutality and compassion. The universe doesn't hand out moral mandates. It hands out causes and effects. We don’t “choose” justice any more than we “choose” war—we are driven toward outcomes by feedback loops, incentives, and environmental structures. And yes, by conversations like this.

You say I’ve “chosen” to privilege kindness and justice—as if I stepped outside causality for a moment, surveyed the moral buffet, and picked the feel-good option. That’s not how determinism works. At all. I support empathy and harm-reduction not because I’m free to—but because my experiences, education, and interactions have causally led me there. That includes conversations on this forum.

So let’s not straw-man this. I’ve said it clearly: pushing for a better world is part of the causal chain. If I advocate for compassion, it’s because something—many things—led me here. And if you think your own moral stance came from some metaphysical freedom, you’re the one sneaking in unexamined assumptions.

Determinism doesn’t dictate what values we land on. But it does demand that we understand how we got there—and that we stop pretending we’re moral gods casting judgment from a throne of freedom.

You want to debate the outcomes? Let’s. But let’s not pretend I’ve hidden the premises. They’ve been on the table from the start.

[FlashDangerpants]

So when you say “Nobody else does,” that may be true. But “nobody else” has offered me a better framework that explains human behavior, morality, politics, or history with the same level of consistency and coherence. I’m always open to being challenged on that—but brushing it off as my “only move” doesn’t engage with the position. It just avoids it.

Nobody gave you determinism to be used the way you do. You just have a magic mirror that gives you back your own ideas with no criticism and it turns out that's all you want. Determinism doesn't do anything. Believing in it doesn't make people racist or non-racist, and it doesn't make racism true or false either. You just fabulise a self-serving deterministic myth for each situation as it arises, and whenever you investigate, mysteriously it turns out that the magic of determinism agrees with you.

We've seen this before with Christians. Every Christian can look into their magic book and find out that God agrees with everything they personally happen to believe even common sense says that they hold deeply unchristian beliefs about not clothing the naked and not being kind to immigrants. You are just doing the same sycophantic self-pleasuring with your secular religion.

[BigMike]

So when you say “Nobody else does,” that may be true. But “nobody else” has offered me a better framework that explains human behavior, morality, politics, or history with the same level of consistency and coherence. I’m always open to being challenged on that—but brushing it off as my “only move” doesn’t engage with the position. It just avoids it.

Nobody gave you determinism to be used the way you do. You just have a magic mirror that gives you back your own ideas with no criticism and it turns out that's all you want. Determinism doesn't do anything. Believing in it doesn't make people racist or non-racist, and it doesn't make racism true or false either. You just fabulise a self-serving deterministic myth for each situation as it arises, and whenever you investigate, mysteriously it turns out that the magic of determinism agrees with you.

We've seen this before with Christians. Every Christian can look into their magic book and find out that God agrees with everything they personally happen to believe even common sense says that they hold deeply unchristian beliefs about not clothing the naked and not being kind to immigrants. You are just doing the same sycophantic self-pleasuring with your secular religion.

Flash, if determinism were just a “magic mirror,” I’d expect it to reflect personal comfort, excuses, or moral neutrality. But what it’s forced me to do—again and again—is the exact opposite: to confront deeply uncomfortable truths about how little credit or blame any of us can honestly take. If I argue against racial essentialism, punitive justice, or inequality rooted in inheritance, it’s not because determinism agrees with me—it’s because determinism doesn’t let me look away from the causes behind those outcomes.

You say “determinism doesn’t do anything.” But that’s not true. It reorients how responsibility is assigned, how justice is framed, how history is understood. If someone’s life trajectory was shaped by causes outside their control—family, geography, nutrition, trauma—then punishment without understanding is not just cruel; it’s irrational. That shift from blame to causation isn’t a moral sleight of hand—it’s a radical epistemic correction.

And no, it’s not like religion. Religion asks for faith. Determinism demands evidence. It leaves no room for myths of moral desert or “just deserts.” If I defend marginalized people, it’s not because I think I’m morally superior—it’s because determinism tells me nobody starts from scratch, and we owe it to truth—not virtue—to factor that in.

If you’ve got a better framework—one that explains human cruelty, inequality, and systemic inertia without resorting to fiction like free will or merit—show me. But calling my worldview “sycophantic self-pleasuring” doesn’t challenge the logic. It just avoids it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, if determinism were just a “magic mirror,” I’d expect it to reflect personal comfort, excuses, or moral neutrality. But what it’s forced me to do—again and again—is the exact opposite: to confront deeply uncomfortable truths about how little credit or blame any of us can honestly take.

If you stared into the deterministic abys and it told you that you should begin a program of eugenics to purge humanity of all low IQ breeders so that your predestinarian vision can come to pass, would you change your mind and become a eugenicist? Trick question of course; the abys will never tell you anything you don't already believe.

It sure tells you how brave you are often, but never tells you that you are actually wrong. Same as the Bible never tells a Christian he's wrong. You just take your existing opinions, sprinkle them with some personal opinions about what determinism tells you, and then you are done. Other people can have determinism tell them anything they want as well, and that can include eugenics because it will agree with whatever they already believe, just as it does for you.

[accelafine]

So when you say “Nobody else does,” that may be true. But “nobody else” has offered me a better framework that explains human behavior, morality, politics, or history with the same level of consistency and coherence. I’m always open to being challenged on that—but brushing it off as my “only move” doesn’t engage with the position. It just avoids it.

Nobody gave you determinism to be used the way you do. You just have a magic mirror that gives you back your own ideas with no criticism and it turns out that's all you want. Determinism doesn't do anything. Believing in it doesn't make people racist or non-racist, and it doesn't make racism true or false either. You just fabulise a self-serving deterministic myth for each situation as it arises, and whenever you investigate, mysteriously it turns out that the magic of determinism agrees with you.

We've seen this before with Christians. Every Christian can look into their magic book and find out that God agrees with everything they personally happen to believe even common sense says that they hold deeply unchristian beliefs about not clothing the naked and not being kind to immigrants. You are just doing the same sycophantic self-pleasuring with your secular religion.

Flash, if determinism were just a “magic mirror,” I’d expect it to reflect personal comfort, excuses, or moral neutrality. But what it’s forced me to do—again and again—is the exact opposite: to confront deeply uncomfortable truths about how little credit or blame any of us can honestly take. If I argue against racial essentialism, punitive justice, or inequality rooted in inheritance, it’s not because determinism agrees with me—it’s because determinism doesn’t let me look away from the causes behind those outcomes.

You say “determinism doesn’t do anything.” But that’s not true. It reorients how responsibility is assigned, how justice is framed, how history is understood. If someone’s life trajectory was shaped by causes outside their control—family, geography, nutrition, trauma—then punishment without understanding is not just cruel; it’s irrational. That shift from blame to causation isn’t a moral sleight of hand—it’s a radical epistemic correction.

And no, it’s not like religion. Religion asks for faith. Determinism demands evidence. It leaves no room for myths of moral desert or “just deserts.” If I defend marginalized people, it’s not because I think I’m morally superior—it’s because determinism tells me nobody starts from scratch, and we owe it to truth—not virtue—to factor that in.

If you’ve got a better framework—one that explains human cruelty, inequality, and systemic inertia without resorting to fiction like free will or merit—show me. But calling my worldview “sycophantic self-pleasuring” doesn’t challenge the logic. It just avoids it.

He's correct though. All you have ever done is twist your own version of 'determinism' to peddle your ideological beliefs. That's very much a religious tactic and has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. A determinisitc world is the one we've got. There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it. We just have to ride the wave--because we are part of the wave. Your assertion that we must 'accept determinism' to 'create a kinder, more just' world is absurd and even you must see that. A 'kinder, more just' world is going to happen or it isn't.

[BigMike]

Flash, if determinism were just a “magic mirror,” I’d expect it to reflect personal comfort, excuses, or moral neutrality. But what it’s forced me to do—again and again—is the exact opposite: to confront deeply uncomfortable truths about how little credit or blame any of us can honestly take.

If you stared into the deterministic abys and it told you that you should begin a program of eugenics to purge humanity of all low IQ breeders so that your predestinarian vision can come to pass, would you change your mind and become a eugenicist? Trick question of course; the abys will never tell you anything you don't already believe.

It sure tells you how brave you are often, but never tells you that you are actually wrong. Same as the Bible never tells a Christian he's wrong. You just take your existing opinions, sprinkle them with some personal opinions about what determinism tells you, and then you are done. Other people can have determinism tell them anything they want as well, and that can include eugenics because it will agree with whatever they already believe, just as it does for you.

Flash, this is bordering on intentional stupidity. You’re not arguing against determinism—you’re arguing against your own cartoon of it. If someone looks at causal reality and concludes “eugenics is the answer,” that’s not determinism at work—that’s their prior bias wearing a lab coat.

Determinism doesn’t “tell” anyone what to do. It reveals that everything—beliefs, values, cruelty, compassion—has a cause. That’s not a moral compass; it’s a lens. What you do with that lens shows who you are. If someone uses it to justify atrocity, that’s on them, not the lens.

So no, the abyss doesn’t whisper anything. But it forces a choice: either ignore causality and keep pretending people “deserve” their place—or acknowledge that outcomes flow from conditions, and build policy, justice, and ethics accordingly.

If you think that’s just “sprinkling opinions,” then you’re not engaging with the argument—you’re just waving it away because you can’t be bothered to answer it.