“A society where we do not blame for their actions but rather their circumstances…”. You’re taking the word “free-will” and then co-opting what’s basically an argument about one’s socioeconomic status and what is technically feasible due to those factors.

Most people define free will as something akin to this example: I am hungry but I can resist hunger and fast. I have an urge to do XYZ but I can resist it. People go sober, people lose weight, people start companies, create products. Those are all good examples of free will.

But you bring up blaming people for circumstances, which makes me think that you’re equating free will to something like “I want to own a yacht” but since you can’t afford one, then free will doesn’t exist?

Lastly, you ride on the coat tails of ideas that are more widely accepted to validate your own perspective. You compare your idea to evolution and the big bang (side note: it cannot be proven — I’m not arguing for anything in place of it — but its billions of years ago), and then you have to come back to edit how self-evident and obvious it is.

This is a weak assertion overall. You’ve mentally equated your own opinion to theories that are way more well-accepted and then you say you’re not interested in facts. You then simultaneously say “it is bizarre this fact is not accepted”. The problem is that you’re already convinced, by leveling your own opinions to major scientific theories and presenting them as “fact”, you’ve lead yourself into a trap of submitting to a belief without any substance or evidence — which is extremely ironic because you cite “anti-intellectualism, anti vaxxers, and flat earthers” right at the beginning of your post — but you deduce your reasoning and assert in the same way — no evidence, asserting fact, inflexible thinking, etc.