The most important lesson ... Yet

Racism ... is a matter of Group Dynamics.


"Well ... Duh!".
But there's so much more to it than meets the eye. For instance, sometimes descriptions like this only sound right. Or are just "in about" right. Like so, I might be saying that Racism is a Group thing, namedropping fascism - and while everyone can see that racism is a matter of Group Dynamics, people would usually say that racism at its core is more akin to Xenophobia than having Group Identity.

Because ... uhm ... |Duh(?)|


As far as the Bible is concerned, the thing that I'm trying to get at is - by its own accounts - older than the book itself. Be it the Cainites assuming an identity different to the rest, or the people mocking Noah for his "project" - that's the ancient stuff. Alongside the creation of the Thora there's all the ... well ... "Nay sayers" among the Israelites tht thought being a Slave in egypt was so much cooler. People that turned towards idolatry first chance they got - people ... that ultimately had to be 'removed' due to the Holiness that their God had required for their conquest of Canaan.

It's a repetitive tale. Then, so, we get to Jesus ... and as for what happened to him, we might not right away think "Fascism" - as establishing a connection might be very ... strenuous. But yes ... what I so am writing about is "People being People ... being one of the primary problems" - or something to that effect.


So, if you so will ... I think that these stories - this observational angle onto our history - is the REALEST thing about the Bible. Because ... it's a very real thing.


But so ... well, this whole Group Dynamics thing is GREATER THAN Racism.
The thing is, that Group Dynamics have Racism built into them. So, saying that Racism is a matter of Group Dynamics is also somewhat wrong - as Racism is surely its very own thing. Like so, I guess some people may feel entitled to argue that the Nazis weren't racist, actually. But, perhaps, even so very tolerant. However and after all ... they did ally with the Italians and the Japanese.

So do I also believe in something that vibes alongside sentiments such as "people playing victim for social credits" or how to put it. Well, that whole social/cultural angle to the Culture War that got kicked loose around Gamergate. Or so ... the whole "Anti-SJW vs. SJW" thing. Though what I'm saying is that people's perceptions and experiences may lead them into a cycle of doom - where their assumptions of being discriminated inform their expectations which in turn bias their behaviors and beliefs regarding those matters.
Like ... sure, being Black might ... do that. I mean, I suppose we can blame the victims for believing that they are victims - but if you're like the one kid that is visibly different ... and your parents don't impart the weight of decades if not centuries of colonial might onto you to get out of that perception ... things are like ... pre-determined to end ... in a way they probably shouldn't.

What I'm saying is that if a bunch of white people that so have certain shared cultural antics sit together ... may inevitably send off racist vibes to people that aren't part of that group. That, because the group dynamics will have those white folks develop a synergy that the strangers are being left out of.


It is, I would say, the very same thing that Feminists would call "the Patriarchy" - and also the very same thing that racist white dudes could call "the Conspiracy against white Supremacy" - but that'd be admitting that they're sort of white supremacists. Which they might be ... merely by accident. Unconsciously.

I mean, if we want to look at Gamergate ... the thing is not that "the Gamers" came together in some secret council led by Total Biscuit and decided that Women/Feminists had to be excised from the Internet or something to that effect. And the fact that Total Biscuit is being lumped into this also speaks volumes to where that is coming from. The Gamergate incident. I remember TB covering it - and that wasn't weird for him to do because he - and James Stephanie Sterling may have a few words on that also - was an outspoken critic of corruption in Videogame Journalism. But to my recollection he only touched upon it briefly, and once the whole thing became what it became ... he tried to stay out of it. But apparently that's already been enough. Which solidifies the impression that Gamers just in general were the target. Targeted by the kind of person that would then be redeemed from criticism by virtue of having all the right Victim Cards in their deck.

I mean ... because I was a fan of TB and I followed his stuff more than that of anyone else - I didn't even notice what was going on. By the time I learned what an "SJW" is - and what Anita Sarkeesian said - and all that, it had already blown up.
And by that point I mostly watched Thunderf00t's stuff on the matter. And "people" arguing that he was cherrypicking are themselves cherrypicking. And so for a time the term 'nuance' was being used a bit. Nuance that people felt got lost - as 'Anti SJW' and 'SJW' became group identities with like a very "Christian vs Muslim" esque "Innate and implicit mutual hostility".

And I felt very strongly about this, as ... towards the end of that era, alongside the rise of orange man, I think a lot of "us" (Anti SJW's) were tired and "gave up". That possibly mostly because the kind of people that were attracted to the anti SJW rhetoric - were like a different ilk; And so the battle was lost.
So today there's very little left of that. The thing I felt strongly about. So, what I'll say isn't meant as relevant today - but, it's just a look at history.
So: "We, the Gamers" were like ... a group. We were on the Internet because Online Multiplayer and Videogame related content on YouTube made us some kind of ... "natives" to the online world. Other than that there would be people that use it for business reasons, but those people would have a "real life"; Which they'd also forfeit by taking that to the people living their lives out online; And then of course the whole "Cat Video" crew. So, people that "have Internet" out of curiosity - until "having Internet" became essentially a requirement for even just existing in the modern world. So, on that note: Of course kids are going to want it too. Regardless of what we'd individually want - the world imposes it on them. Which, yea, is also a matter of group dynamics; More so relative to the Forces that Be.

And so, as they get on the internet; They also are inevitably going to get in contact with this "Fringe" culture war that's been going on. But it isn't fringe. It's fringe to those that don't spend much time on the internet. To anyone "really on" the Internet ... it's like ... the one thing that the Internet is and does at this point.


Give or take.
Anyhow - so - what came from the Gamergate incident were on the one side "Feminists" with their 'weird takes' on Gaming as a whole - and "Gamers" criticizing that. And it wasn't just gamers. I think TJ Kirk a.k.a. the Amazing Atheist was just what we might call a "Rationalist" that basically just by accident had an intersection with "Gamergate". How Sargon of Akkad got into this ... I have absolutely no clue of. He's the kind of guy that makes me think that he never watched a movie or played a game in his entire life.
I mean - on that side there are ... "Gamers" that really act out this whole "Holier than though" thing - and people might not notice because ... weird context. ... uhm. Anyhow ...

Long story short ... we have us a real "Group Dynamicism" here. That is: The cultural group of Gamers being basically "Invaded" by criticism. And whether or not I managed to establish that it was in fact an operation targetting Gamers specifically; Rather than Gamers targetting Feminists ... is irrelevant because the friction between the two groups was most certainly caused by bad faith actors on both sides.

The thing is that once we can look beyond this - and that's also kind of where "Modern SJW ism" and "Modern Anti-SJW ism" coalesced into what some people might call "Woke-ism" - but not really; Because "woke" is mostly a term used by the "Anti Wokes"; As ... we might call it a "Don Quixottian Dragon". And by their intellectual profile - to my understanding - are the "new Online Left" the "Modern" Anti-SJWs and the "Anti Woke" crowd are the "Modern" SJWs.

While the Anti Wokes however claim to embody "the Legacy and Tradition of Old" - they're but a farce of what the whole thing used to be about. But, in as far as it's still going on ... it may be difficult to get the "Group Dynamics" thing that I mean to write about ... from it.


But so, "TLDR": "Gamer" as a Group Identity became synonymous with Fascism and Misogyny.
Though, as the dust settles, we realize that "Pre Sarkeesian" sensitivities still persist - even so in spaces where "the Gamer" isn't typically part of that classic "Cis-Het White Male" profile. At least to some extent. I mean, "pandering to the male gaze" - or rather so: treating women merely as subject to or asset of male fantasy - has subsided a bit. Not by removing sex appeal - but by adjusting it. See ... Street Fighter 6 or Baldur's Gate 3.

So, giving female Characters an aura of individuality and self-expression; Much akin to the male; And subjecting male Characters to sexual desires also; Much as it used to be withe the female.
And yes. I suppose much of the stuff that SJWs were criticized for somehow resonates within that ... which is part of saying that their itches weren't entirely unfounded.


So, because: Saying that problems like Racism and Misogyny are issues with Group Dynamics may be right and awesome and all that - but it does't ... like ... 'solve' it.

Solving it - also isn't really the thing here. When it comes to "Lessons Learned" - the solution is what follows the epiphany. So, individuals turning away from the wrong - the Pitfalls as it were - which may or may not involve a radical metamorphosis of sorts.
And I'd argue that instances where the changes are but subtle ... are the more difficult situations.


So, on the other hand - I have two more examples fizzling through my consciousness here. Both involve Capcom games, which eventually makes for a third example. But here we also get a bit deeper into Conspiracy stuff.
So ... be warned.

On the forefront we have Dragon's Dogma 2. I've started playing it - and I have to say that it's more fun than ... I expected. Or would expect from what to me appears to be its "profile". And while people enjoy it - a controversy has ... "arisen" ... that plagued its perception within the social environments of the Intersphere. Microtransactions. The game has Microtransactions. Things that can be bought are Farestones (? - I play with german text) - stones that allow the player to Quick-Travel; And other items of that sort. "What an Outrage". And it's difficult to defend that; Given that the topic of Microtransactions is like ... by common sentiment so that having Microtransactions is akin to a Cardinal sin. So yea, Microtransactions bad! "The End". Except that when it comes to the arguments as to why Microtransactions are bad - the game does it all right! For once; at no point was I ... in the game ... reminded that I could spend money. Well, except for that one Vendor that's effectively tucked away in the shadows - though the currency is also earned in game. Sure, not enough - but it's not like any of it really matters. So, it allows people to buy stuff ... that no real Gamer(TM) should need to buy. And yea, planning your Journeys - or thinking at least a little bit before using a Farestone - is part of the fun. I mean - it has very primitive camping mechanics; Alongside inventory items having weight; So, any one trip is likely to clutter one's inventory and so the matter of arriving at a town - and preparing for the next trip - adds to the feel of it. Also because you can't learn/unlock new skills "on the road". And equipping new skills can also only be done on Campsites or those Vocation Guilds. That makes every trip into the wild a low-key commitment - and while camping doesn't really use up resources; Comming to a town where you can upgrade your Vocation and store all the clutter in your "Meta Inventory" is very much part of what makes this game ... well ... Fun or Cherishable. And that'd be gone if you could just villy nilly port back to town. This isn't Diablo after all. There the layout is different. I mean - in Diablo 1 at least, I think, the matter was to go deeper and deeper into a Dungeon ... where "return to surface - back into the deep" is part of the fun or the feel of it. So, the very same mechanic plays out differently.

But so you have those people that wiggle the "Microtransactions!!!" finger - and then find other bad stuff to throw in to make the game look bad. And at some point that's just ... what it seems to be. Then people who see what kinds of Microtransactions the game has get upset because to their minds that's all pretty basic stuff that shouldn't be locked behind Microtransactions. But ... these certainly aren't the kind of Microtransactions that'd make Capcom rich! They're not pay to win. It's more of a ... pay to be stupid. I mean, if you ever have to buy any of that ... like HAVE TO ... it should feel like a walk of shame.
Unless you somehow want to buy glasses for your Pawn. IDK.

As for the ... what's it called? Dragonsplague? I don't know. I've noticed it ... that at some point some Pawns sound ... weird. And eventually they'd turn into enemies until killed. But they're back to normal when revived. However, I later found that Dragons can "turn" Pawns - it's a grab attack. The pawn then becomes hostile. Apparently there's more to it, but ... I haven't encountered it. I'm concerned though. I mean ... my Pawn for instance ... was built as a Support Character. So, just simple ... mage/healer - for the most part. Or at all. Eventually the Pawn stated that they'd like to be a Warrior, out of curiosity. And I sure wanted the Pawn to have some versatility - and some skills gained from a Vocation are Universal. Other Pawns then would ask them, whether they've always been a Warrior. And the Pawn would say things to the effect of ... "It was difficult as a mage at first. Being a Warrior is much simpler". But ... being a Loyal support Character ... my Pawn made for an AWEFUL Warrior. I'd be standing there as an Archer at the time - wondering what my Pawn was doing. They were certainly not - as a Warrior should be - there in the front dealing with stuff. But preferred to stay by my side and prioritize support. OK, so, maybe if I was a Fighter or Rogue ... things would have been different. Now that my Pawn's a mage again ... that same question comes up every now and then - but my Pawn stays silent. I don't know ... what's up with that. Maybe it's a bug. Am I getting paranoid?


Anyhow ... the whole outrage over Microtransactions ...; Then coalescing with all the other surface level turn-offs; Are another instance of Group Dynamics - and not a new one at that. As a Capcom fan I've come to notice ... how some Companies or how to call it ... have a much harder time with this shit - allthewhile other Companies pull a lot more ... outrageous stunts. I mean ... whatever "GTA Online" is ... is mostly a stranger thing to me. But I don't find people being upset about Rockstar. And I'm sure there's a myriad of excuses - first and foremost that you "don't have to" - but ... uhmm ... yea.
Naturally one might first blame the respective Fandoms. Like so could I argue, that Capcom is an easy target for this kind of criticism because their fans for the most part don't have issues like that. I mean - sure. Capcom isn't like From Soft or Larian or CDPR when it comes to that - but I think Capcom has always been fair. So I guess the average Capcom game enjoyer is like "I don't care" - which might be bad but still ... "so what?".

Which is saying - in as far as I put it together properly - that this is like an instance of bullying. Capcom being an easy target for "Brownie Points" as all the other 'real issues' are like ... Forbidden Territory.


All that are pretty straightforward examples. So in the sense that the 'group' is in effect very visible - their dynamics pretty much apparent; And so the issues they cause or run into or how to put it. As for the second example - that's not the case.

Here we talk about Cheating ... in Street Fighter 6 in particular. Now, Cheating in SF6 is a thing. I'd argue that SF6's mechanics make it at times really apparent when someone's cheating ... badly. That is ... Drive Rush and Perfect Parrys make it really apparent when someone's cheating poorly. Cheating in SF6 means that their game is hacked - essentially - such that a routine can analyze the opponents inputs and react to them. So - what has been spotted from what I've seen are examples where certain attacks by the opponent trigger certain responses. So, jumping over every fireball within three frames of its startup - while the player themself otherwise doesn't jump ever. Or a OD reversal the moment the opponent throws out an unsafe light attack - while the player themself otherwise doesn't use the attack ever. Or a Drive Impact within three frames of the opponent throwing out an uncancellable normal attack. And in this order - they're mentioned from least to most apparent. So, the thing is - a) It's evident that some people cheat and b) good cheating is difficult to spot. If they'd employ a randomizer for instance to not react a percentage of the time - or make it "smart" so there won't be any suspicious inputs (like, trying to Drive Impact while in the air or doing some other thing) - we'd have a hard time saying that it happens definitively.

And that is one side to the story. On the other, it's easy to get paranoid over this. You might be subconsciously spotting weird behavior. But a lot could be blamed on accidents/luck or you just being bad. Like ... I "know" that I sometimes miss my inputs. I then find it strange that sometimes I'm like unable to cancel attacks into a Drive Rush - and might start to blame the game for crippling my inputs. That would also entail a whole other Level of cheating. Like ... built in/hidden in the game's engine. But I also noticed that one time that I'm really really just sloppy with my fingers. "Or am I?". Anyhow. There's stress which has a way of clouding one's judgment; As for instance when the mind is already "on alert" over something.
The thing then is however ... that my mind is more 'on alert' with some Characters - like, Ed really rubbed me in all the wrong ways - to the point where I'm saying that he has no right to have that good of an OD uppercut. Like ... "at least make it unsafe against crouched attacks". But ... what I think is happening to me is that I'm falling into the "every Character can be Overpowered when played right" trap. Well, I tried to play with Ed and in that regard I think he sucks - in a different way. As people say: "He's meh". But that's not my experience playing against him. It's like ... 4 out of 5 Ed's I run into are like ... High Grand Master Ed players it would seem; That have figured out every way of countering my gameplay. So ... I might stress that Ed is OP; But Ken is OK. Sure ... I just play on ... well, my Chun is on Plat 1 - been in Plat 2 for a while - and my Cammy is currently in Gold 4. Anyhow.
But ... "what if" ... there's a conspiracy? That ... the "perfect Cheaters" employ Characters A, B and C against me - while generally, out there, the same crowd employs Characters D, E and F?

The result were, that more people speak in favor of A, B and C - and against D, E and F - while for me the situation is the inverse. And so, in as far as the problem is tackled by its surface level appearances; A, B and C would "get buffed" while D, E and F would "get nerfed" - but why?

Anyhow - for once can we here see a glimpse at the Group Dynamics thing. Here, I am no more right or wrong as the rest; But either side would mis-identify the problem. Naturally that wouldn't factor into the upper Echelons of skill. I've run into my fair share of good - at least for my Level - Lukes and Kens and JPs; To not doubt that they're top tier. Though often enough I find them to be pushovers. Relatively speaking. As compared to the Juri's and the Ed's. Where sure there is a Level of noobism to it. All that is however also entirely beside the point.
But yea - if I take off my biased goggles - it's in about the same. Except the distribution is different. For whatever reason.

The point is ... we might call it: "Instanced Perception". It is what I think really drives the toxicity of modern group dynamics. And with that ... I come to a close here.


"GL and HF".