That's a case of where you see the right answer, you instinctively know it's true. Your comment is such a case. I'm like "yep, that's the answer...it's obvious now in hindsight"
What is the correlation between trannies and speedrunning? Look, I know the easy answer is to be a speedrunner you by nature have to be terminally online, but even by terminally online standards, the tranny-ness disproportion is extreme in the speedrunning "community". Does anyone have a legitimate explanation?
It could be converted to imperial, technology and physics wouldn't change, just the system of measurement
Elon musk needs to get busy researching this field of transportation ASAP
And unlike the other reboot games which praise every aspect of Kratos "softening" and showing the chuds that "real masculinity is not toxic", every time this female character commits violence it will be portrayed as pure "empowerment".
The same midwiits who said "so you think violence is masculinity, wow shows how fragile your masculinity is"
Will reject any criticism of girlboss action as "it's just a game for fun, I didn't hear you guys complain when Kratos was violent in the original PS2 and PS3 games...you just don't like seeing a strong woman in gaming"
Jury's don't work anymore. People convict on feelings.
Judges are equally corrupt and often emotional and agenda driven so judge only courtrooms wouldn't solve the problem either.
But basically if I was in a derek chauvin situation and there were a few black people and women, I'd be like, "good bye freedom."
As razorfist points out jury of your peers means they ought to be more inclined towards you and your general way than against.
If people who have no vested interest in convicting you still convict you over overwhelming evidence then the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria has been much closer to satisfied.
A conservative white guy should have conservative white guys as his peers.
The only problem is conservative white guys will be the only ones seeking justice regardless of any other factors.
If a ghetto black guy has a jury of ghetto black types, that gang banger is getting declared innocent every single time.
My opinion of a potential way that would have closer to blind justice.
Remove all names, remove the ability for lawyers to make emotion appeal based arguments, don't let anyone see or know who the accused is.
Prosecutors present "subject a is accused of perpetuating x crime against victims b. Remove the skin color and name and sex of victims.
The jury is only allowed to wrestle with the facts of the case.
They don't know if the perpetrator is white, black, Muslim, Asian, etc.
Only after they hand down the verdict do details of the case be revealed.
Now people could get pretty good at guessing based on the nature of the crimes but they could never be 100% sure.
And without emotional arguments being allowed to be used, the juries would just go "I guess this points to scenario a over scenario b so we'll declare innocent or guilty depending on what the facts say.
When you can be sentenced for being the wrong skin color or political alignment. And being at the wrong place at the wrong time, yeah activist juries are worse than a bad judge in some cases.
That's why all parties identification should be off the table. Hate crime was basically let's make white people have harsher sentences to "balance the scales". That's not blind justice.
If the crime is murder then follow the evidence, not the emotion or the narrative, likewise for every other crime.
This is part of why I roll my eyes when people say Indie games are great and the Indie scene is thriving.
The amount of times I've seen a Duke Nukem style FPS tribute type game, but they've made the protagonist a female. I've always liked to imagine the games I would make if I had the skill set to do it.
Imagine you have the skill to make any game you want, you made a 3D world, you give it Doom or Duke Nukem 3D like shooting mechanics, you make creative guns, etc, etc etc and then you yourself, not blackrock, not EA, not Activision; YOU decide to make the protagonist a woman.
The amount of games like this are legion on Steam. Indie and female protagonist are like the most common pairing, even in games meant to try to appeal to older gamers like Ion Fury.
If you're heavily in the geek sphere, chances are you're a flaming leftist, whether you have 250 dollars to rub together or 250 million dollars from blackrock loans.
Same when I see "artist" films made on shoe string budgets and they decide to make poignant short films about the struggles of being a black intersectional feminist.
Blaming wokeness on Blackrock and other things like that, puts the cart before the horse.
They became idealogues, and made things ideological. Then the ideologues entered banks and other institutions, that's why you don't suddenly see a bunch of based games in the Indie sphere.
Because the crossover between those with the skills to make based games and those who have based values isn't extraordinarily high.
I mean AAA games from EA and companies like that in the early 2000s, things like SSX, Medal of Honor Frontline, were completely apolitical. And why? Because the culture was apolitical.
Suddenly, the culture becomes highly ideological and gaming becomes ideological, though gaming was even way slower getting there compared to comics and movies.
My point; while the civil rights act and 1960s liberal values eroded American society the most, and blackrock and other agenda pushing institutions have their share of blame, let's not let the self-willed millenial retards that festered their viewpoints on Tumblr get away from any responsibility.
Back then when you'd point out the radicalization going on in Tumblr you'd always get the same defense from the "rational centrist" types. "lol, you're literally whining about some college kids going through a phase...they pose no threat to the culture".
Same was said about feminism in the 80s. Today's festering subculture is a decade from now's main culture.
This is why I have a problem with so many people going with a simple circular answer of always "it's just the Jews".
No, think of most Jews in Hollywood like Ari Gold in the show Entourage. They want to make money. Ari Gold who was heavily inspired by a real agent, would play the woke game to the degree it is the financially survivable play in the woke culture that puts pressure on people. Ari Gold, the Jew, to the degree people like him are a real representation of a type, Jewish Hollywood movers and shakers, don't give a crap about ideology, but about money. That's not even a "Jews are greedy" point. It's just a point of similar to how Trump is a populist. Trump is not heavy ideological and will often back off an issue if his base strongly sends a message. Sometimes they push things, but mostly they follow cultural shifts. The biggest shifts in the entertainment industry, whether gaming or movies was when women and feminine ideologically rotted men started entering. Star Wars became what it was when Kathleen Kennedy got in. Almost every woke thing can be traced to ideologically feminine thinking people, whether they be women or men. Remember, one of the biggest wimps in Hollywood, James Cameron has pushed feminism in all of his movies, and he's not Jewish.
You know why James Cameron pushes feminism? It's a very simple answer. He's a wimp. Because no self-respecting man is a male feminist.
Yes, giant comment, I understand, but I'm just pointing out that the cultural rot can't be easily pinpointed like it so often does. If it could, you should see very few ideological indie movies and indie games, and yet those are legion.
A feminine worldview that has accelerated due to the internet and families not having a father more and more over the past decades have a non-insignificant amount of explanatory power. Now you might be inclined to say the Jews destroyed the family.
If you want to point to a first cause, that too is too complex and just throwing up your hands and saying "it's the Jews" is a lack of intellectual rigor, and is just a default belief so you don't have to think hard. Exploring first causes would turn this already long comment into a college thesis paper, and I wouldn't arrive at the answer, but I could explore it. The first cause is not simply "the Jews", rather my position is, it's fairly unanswerable due to the complexity of reality and all the intersecting factors of a society and the spiritual reality of abandoning God.
Does that mean I'm against pattern recognition and go "well here's someone who's an exception so there's no generalization that can be made". No, I rely on pattern following frequenly in my critical thinking. It's just pattern following for powerful Jews is unreliable for truth arrival for the same reason pattern following "rich white guys" is unreliable. It's not explanatory enough. With the black community, observation works. You don't need to know how it got there, you can just observe how it is. Same with women, you can observe how women think and act.
With Jews it's a constant ball and cup game. The ones who fit the profile are better explained through the power that corrupts everyone, and even the things they're accused of are usually by their nature hidden. Then there's the fact Jews aren't as collectivist as their haters make them out. If they were, Roseanne would be labelled some word like an "uncle tom". Instead, leftist Jews call Roseanne the same thing they call white conservatives. "Racist, bigot, conspiracy theorist". Typically highly collectivist people groups have special words for people who break from the fold, such as the Mafia...with the Mafia, being a rat is the worst thing you can be. With black people, being perceived as an uncle tom is the worst thing you can be. But with Jews the ones who are leftist are more concerned about abandoning leftism than they are it being a breaking of core Jewish identity, hence why Roseanne is called the same things that James Woods is called. Because the cult they're most adhering to is leftism, not Judaism.
The one guy who understands! You are a man of culture
I imagine you haven't tried it. Just like AI can create images, it's relying on AI to detect depth.
It's not perfect, but just like how it was always "impossible to do that CSI thing of zoom in and enhance", and yet it kind of is possible now with things like Topaz AI.
Similar with 3D AI stuff.
Yes, you're right that Topaz AI is guessing when it upscales, but it guesses well enough that it feels like the science fiction bullcrap that was CSI "zoom and enhance".
The 3D depth detection is guessing and it can guess wrong, but it guesses right well enough that it serves it's purpose of feeling like a 3D movie.
There's some badly converted 3D movies where they barely did the bare minimum to slap a 3D label on it.
Owl3D can sometimes look better 3D than some studio 3D conversions.
It doesn't match crafted well done 3D, not by a long shot, but it's still good.
I'll put it like this. There was a fake 3D that was pretty terrible in the early days of VR that essentially made the left half of the image lag one frame behind the right image, giving the a poor facsimile of 3D sort of like how cherry candy tastes like cough syrup instead of like cherry.
Well if that old version of achieving a 3D effect was a 2 out of 10 on the scale. And a incredibly artfully crafted human done 3D movie is a 10 out of 10 on the scale, I'd say that Owl3D lands at a 6.5 out of 10 on the scale. It's not bad at all. It won't beat a good 3D native shot or a well crafted 3D conversion, but for being able to view anything in 3D at all times, it's sufficient.
Yes it's not been adopted because of lack of content, but this doesn't have lack of content. It has the ability to display native 3D, but also converts in real time anything you put on the screen. A youtube video, a movie, video game, gets converted in real time. So that solves the lack of content issue.
The other diffference is because of eye tracking you don't need that "sweet spot" that other 3D monitors need before that ghosting shows up. The eyetracking makes the 3D track wherever you're looking.
It exists. It's powered by a software that I've been using for years, that has been around for years. The hardware exists and will be shipping as early as April for some, and shipping in June for the rest.
It's not some "proof of concept". They've already built the thing. This kickstarter is just the launch.
The main thing the monitor does it make it so to view 3D you don't have to throw on a VR headset everytime. You can just glance down and immediately see 3D.
eye tracking + special display technology.
It's not the first or only glasses free 3D display. There's even a screen you can apply to Iphones that turns the Iphone display into glasses free 3D.
I don't know the how of it, or how it works, but Samsung has their own glasses free monitor as well, and other brands are jumping on board.
The difference here is the 3D conversion is better because it's powered by software on your computer. Software that requires a 3000 series GPU or higher.
Here's a demonstration of the monitor captured with 3D camera (apple vision pro)
This one is realtime conversion. Anything can be 3D. Any movie, game, photo, website, etc.
Plus native 3D games, if you use Reshade with the 3D plugin.
Other 3D games are certain PS3 titles on RPCS3, 3DS library via the 3DS emulator, and Dolphin which supports 3D support for games.
For anything else you can use the realtime 3D conversion, which converts everything on the fly to 3D.
I'm not part of the kickstarter, but my youtube page has used this software to convert stuff to 3D. That's why I'm interested in it. Getting the monitor because currently, putting on a VR helmet everytime I want to see something converted to 3D is a hassle.
I am now comfortable saying the Jew and Israel hating Christians do not take the Bible literally and have not studied it in depth in most cases but rather cherry pick a few verses they support.
Anyone care to dispute
Let me add another thing.
People view "boomer evangelical foolishness" (as though evangelizing to people about their eternal fate is a negative thing. Only this evil world could turn the word evangelical into a negative) as why they support Israel.
Let me tell you something. I have a lot of issues with that generation of thought among the church. They bought wholesale the 1960s era liberalism, compromising on race, feminism, and other areas of morality.
But they also Biblically accurately recogonized that Jesus is the only way to have your sins forgiven. I suppose that's just "boomer evangelical foolishness" too? Should we throw that out because all the "stupid boomers" believed Jesus is the way the truth and the light?
The church's interpretation of Israel has never had anything to do with liberalness, pressure, etc. I have never heard any pastor of any age say that "we support Israel because they're righteous". Every pastor has recogonized that Israel is spiritually decieved, but the support is on what we know will be true of Israel and the prophecy regarding them.
You can't throw everything out just because "boomer evangelicals believed it". Again, doing that, you'd have to throw out believing in Jesus as well.
The primary issue with that generation was their accepting ideas brought on by worldly means regarding political issues in the West, that were popularized in the 1960s. But obviously the support for Israel has nothing to do with that as Charles Spurgeon and Paul both recognized Israel as being literally restored prophetically.
I have plenty of critiques of the post 1960s church rooted in their subtle adoption of liberal thought, but they're support based on prophecy of Israel has nothing to do with the liberal thought.
In fact, quite the opposite. The church has been one of the only institutions in America supporting Israel over "Palestine".
America, despite allying with Israel has throughout history viewed it as a difficult tight walk, and has had a major role in expanding "Palestine's territory with Israel usually getting less land.
The church has been the one consistent one saying we have a deed called the Bible that tells us who belongs there, and it's not Palestinians. This has been in stark opposition to the more secular minded and liberal minded American western thought.
Again, the subtle liberal church has plenty of things I will be speaking about on my blog about how the subtle liberal things they believe have serious problems in opposing Christian morality when you extrapolate those liberal ideas, but their position on Israel is not due to the post 1960s liberal adoption, but this position predates that adoption, and is a simple reading of the text, a simple and plain reading of what the Bible has said.
If you want to go against Christians who support Israel according to the understanding laid out in the Bible, you better be better literate and well read in regards to the whole Bible if you're going to bring that to the table.
This is the Biblically accurate position.
It won't happen until Jesus comes back, and Israel will repent at that time, but yes, the promised land will be inhabited by Jews and Christians. All the Jews will be Christian at that time, but they will also be ethnically Jewish.
You may not like it, but the land formerly known as Canaan and even far beyond, taking up part of Africa such as Egypt and most of the Middle East was promised to Abraham and his descendents.
Yes Abraham's descendents are spiritual which means Christians are more Abraham's descendents than physical Jews, but it's not ONLY spiritual. The place of Jews in the Bible is significant. Paul says as a Christian, don't be conceited towards the Jews. We've been grafted in because of their stumble, but they will repent and be restored as the original vine we got grafted into.
The pattern of the Old Testament is Jews are faithful for a while, they inherit part of Israel. They become rebellious, they get outcast to another nation, they repent, God brings them back.
But often it would be a while before God finally took them to another land like Babylon. The Book of Judges, Israel is being very bad and still existing in the land of Israel.
Charles Spurgeon saw the Abrahamic covenant as still in effect, literal prophecy and that the formation of the nation of Israel would happen preceeding Christ's return.
Now that's too specific to be a guess. So how did Charles Spurgeon in the 1800s know that Israel would be a nation again? Because he believed the Bible was true and it was prophesysed. He saw with his minds eye, what we would literally see post WW2.
If you look at prophetic news regarding Israel, there's a lot of things pointing to the end times. The red heifer has returned to the land. They've never been closer to being able to rebuild the third temple.
This is not a good thing spiritually for them, because they think they're sins can be forgiven via the temple sacrifice, when Jesus is the temple, but it will lead to ultimate good for them. After the anti-Christ takes his place in the temple, and starts persecuting Israel, Israel will cry out and accept the Messiah they killed and they will be forgiven and Jesus will come back and destroy all the wicked nations.
Israel being unrighteous in regards to God is not a breaker of the Abrahamic covenant which is an eternal covenant.
Now the Jews, who will at that point be believers and the Christian believers will inherit a land promised to Abraham which indeed covers most of the middle East. The Jews have never occupied the full land promised to them. And it doesn't need Christians or nations to ensure this prophecy comes true. It will come true regardless of what nations do. But for the sake of your own nation, it's best you don't oppose prophecy. If you take the position of wanting to spit on Israel, you're in dangerous waters.
Paul warned against this attitude in Romans. Don't be conceited in regards to the Jews. They will be restored one day, and just as they were cut off, you can be cut off by assuming you're righteous just like they did. "If God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either" Romans 11.
Further more, read this part of Romans 11
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is[f] my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”[g]
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Now, don't take my word for it. Choose whatever AI you like and ask it to summarize Romans 11 and you will see that Israel as in actual Jews will recieve God's mercy. The Bible shows how merciful God is. Israel rejoices over what God does for them, then a generation or 2 later, they're worshipping other Gods. They get punishment, later they repent, God brings them back and accepts their repentance. Any other God would cast a people off forever.
Then despite Israel killing their prophets over and over, and God forgiving them when they repent, God sends literally God incarnate to them, Jesus Christ, and they kill Him as well, and they are hardened and cut off for the longest time they've ever been (2000 years now), and YET God will STILL accept them back when they repent and this time, it will be for good, with no more rebellion because after that it will be the thousand year reign with Christ reigning from Israel, and then the eternity forever from that time. The New Jerusalem, the holy city, also called the church, will have 12 gems surrounding it representing the 12 tribes of Israel. Israel, the literal Israel, plays a part in God's redemption of all mankind, the Jew and the Gentile. Jews are currently cast off, but just like in the Old Testament when they'd repent and God would accept them back, He will do it one last time when they accept His Son at the end times.
Do not be conceited against Israel.
You don't and shouldn't donate to get the temple restored. That temple will be built because the Bible has prophecised it and you donating to it furthers the Jews deception. But you should support Israel in your attitude and your anticipatory looking towards them repenting and accepting Jesus.
An attitude of "I hate Jews, I wish Israel would just go away and we'd have way less problems in this world" is an attitude foreign to the Bible.
Even before the 1940s restoration of the nation of Israel, people like Charles Spurgeon through a diligent studying of prophecy recognized the role of Israel in the end times and that God is not through with the people of Israel. Yes Christians are descendants of Abraham through Spirit, but we're not the only descendants of Abraham.
The most American America is the Midwest.
When you think of 1950s Americana like leave it to beaver or the Andy Griffith show. That was basically Midwest culture.
I used to live in the Midwest but havent in years. It was a long holdout staying more traditional than most of US but I imagine it's even succumb to the globalist stuff due to the Internet now.
There may be small towns of like less than a thousand people where will be the only places where you'll see traces of that Americana left, but again, with the internet, I doubt full identity retention is possible in 2026 just due to smart phones alone
Totally disagree. The sign of a healthy market is the middle market. Same with movies.
In the 80s, you'd have middle budget movies, that would make a ton of money, and would sit alongside super high budget movies. Movies like Breakfast Club, which isn't an indie, but it's not a high budget blockbuster either. It was 1 million dollars in 1980s money and it made 51 million dollars.
There were tons of Breakfast Club like movies (in terms of budget and scale) that sat comfortably with the big movies like Return of the Jedi or ET. The middle market thrived.
The indie films fell into two categories, surprise hits that launched people's careers like Halloween, Evil Dead, Clerks,
Or stuff only arthous-y people actively sought out and were hard to come by.
Likewise with gaming. During the PS2 generation, most of people's favorite games, if they did a top ten list, probably like half the list or more would be middle market games.
Max Payne would be in more people's top ten's than a huge budget spectacle game like Medal of Honor Frontline or Call of Duty 2.
You'd have a few games on the larger budget side like the Jak and Daxter games which I imagine were relatively expensive compared to something like Max Payne, or the occasional really expensive game like one of the 3D GTA games, but generally, PS2 era favorite games were a healthy mix of middle market and some high budget games. Indies were barely a factor.
When the only two markets are 250 million dolllar budget games that need black rock funding so that it doesn't bankrupt their studio; or a game made by 3 and a half people that uses pixel art because it's the only art style their budget allows....that's a bad industry.
Movies are the same way now. You either have 250 million dollar movies, or straight to streaming indies made on a shoestring budget meant to pad out a catalogue.
That's not a good market. The indie studio A24 and others like it, are the closest thing to middle market movies, in that they have enough money for good actors, and good cameras that have a filmic look, and they still feel closer to arthouse films you'd have to seek out in the 80s and 90s than the middle market crowd pleasers of things like Breakfast club.
So I think gaming is not in a good position. When I look at "best upcoming indie games of 2026" or any year, I get depressed at how generic and bland things look even when they attempt an interesting art style. I can feel the lack of money.
In the PS2 generation, except for bottom of the barrel shovelware, you couldn't feel the lack of budget, because they tended to have a reasonably high budget. Indie games are relying on post processing filters in engines to replicate the true art style directions that only money can buy, which is why all the games have a sameness to their look despite the color choices used.
This blandness isn't limited to Indie games. AAA games also look bland, but for an entirely different reason. AAA games can't be creative due to their "this is too big of a ship to start getting funky and risky with it, so safe choice is always better" despite that resulting in blandness every time. Then there's the lack of competency compared to the past that also contributes to why even AAA games that have the money to make gorgeous games, look ugly compared to even just artfully crafted PS3 games (especially when the PS3 games are internally upscaled in Emulators).
So on one hand you have Indie without the financial means to replicate distinct memorable looks, and AAA with a combination of factors unable to replicate distinct memorable looks.
Most indie games I've played, even if there's a core gameplay idea that's solid, it's held back and never reaches the heights of an average PS2 or PS3 game.
Again because the middle market is gone. The middle market is the best indicator of a healthy market.
When all you've got is indies and huge budgets, it's not at a good position.
JDS
(Jew Derangement Syndrome)
So if star trek was always woke, then why are they so certain an OG fan wouldn't make it woke?
Interesting corner they've painted themselves into.
If the truest of fans would risk making it not woke enough then was Star Trek always woke?
Pick one leftists.
Btw I fall on the side of yes Star Trek TNG was woke and I imagine the future ones were as well.
Star trek TOS which is the only one I like was NOT woke. It had slight liberal tendencies very rarely but not at a degree higher than average tv.
Heck Andy Griffith show in the first season had more feminist messages than Star Trek TOS.
Star Trek TOS was absolutely chadly in its depiction of the sexes unlike later Star Trek shows like TNG (the only other trek show I watched to be fair).
Star Trek TOS was more or less twilight zone level in terms of occasional liberal inclinations. I'd never call twilight zone woke. It was mostly rooted in universal objective morality, same as most of TOS.
TL;DR I believe Star Trek was ALMOST always woke. TNG was completely woke when you consider it's a late 80s - early 90s show.
TOS and it's respective movies (1-6). Nu uh leftists, sorry, but you don't get any claim on those ones.
Have you heard the term distinction without a difference?
That's what we're arguing over. The problem you're having is you're insulting people's intelligence and their media literacy not even because we don't neccesarily understand the distinction without a difference you're trying to make (and the film is trying to make). It's because we reject the framing. You see the framing as legitimate. Most of us here see the framing as contrived, arbitrary and done for agenda based reasons.
Take the movie Lethal Weapon 2. I don't like that movie. I can't watch it. The reason? The framing of the movie is based on the idea that Apartheid was racist and bad and evil whitey oppressed the black people. The villain of the movie is a physical manifestation of "apartheid is evil".
Seeing how good South Africa used to be, the gold coast, vs today, I cannot enjoy Lethal Weapon 2 because I reject the framing.
Now Silence of the Lambs, I can still enjoy because the movie isn't framed or encompassed by that framing of Buffalo Bill not being a true transexual. Without the line, the movie doesn't change. It's still a great movie with a clap trap line and framing thrown in to cover their butts in terms of political correctness. If the movie were made in the 1960s, I'm pretty certain that line and framing would not be included. Likewise, if Buffalo Bill were not a bad guy, but were portrayed as misunderstood gentle person who helps the FBI and doesn't murder people, that line would be cited as "transphobic" by the modern film watchers and that line would never be in there in the first place. But again it's a small framing and line that can easily be ignored.
On the other hand without the "Apartheid bad, whitey bad" framing in Lethal Weapon 2, you don't have a movie, so that's why I can't watch Lethal Weapon 2. Same reason I can't watch Die Hard with a Vengeance because it's so race preachy. The point of Die Hard with a Vengeance isn't to be an action movie, it's to be a racial message delivering mechanism in an action movie dressing, same with Lethal Weapon 2.
Rejecting the framing is not the same as lacking media literacy and you're insulting people's intelligence for no good reason.
Taking you're view and taking it as face value that he merely wants to be transexual because he's a mental hydrocondriac, I still say, yeah and? I bet plenty of "trans" are mental hypochordriacs. Maybe in high school, they thought being a scene kid, or an emo, or a furry, or a goth, or a weeb would make them have an identity that made them feel fulfilled.
Maybe when they entered their 20s, they dropped that identity, and became hipsters, or got really into punk music, and tried to be fulfilled by the punk scene. Now they're still miserable in their 30s and they think being a transsexual will fill them with happiness but it never will. The very core of "transgender" is identity crisis, so you're calling people dumb and media illiterate over a distincition without a difference.
I'd imagine many older "transexuals" often go through many identity hopping abouts chasing a "correct fit" they'll never find outside of the identity in Christ.
But here's the real crux. You're accepting the original framing because that's how "transexuals" were diagnosed back in the day with clear criteria as a mental disorder as opposed to a "faker".
Hindsight in the modern day (though anyone with discernment knew this from day one, it's just not up for debate at this point even among secularists, though they try to debate it, reality is crushingly against them) has shown us that any attempt to legitimize certain as being "true transexuals" if they fit certain criteria was all just part of that slippery slope of post truth "define truth in your own eyes" rejection of the Biblical reality of male and female.
The way they diagnosed people back in the 80s was just as stupid as the self diagnosis now.
It's you're a male or a female, and anything else is delusion, mental illness. There's no such thing as a "true transexual" anymore than there's such a thing as someone who truly believes they're Elvis Presley compared to someone who merely wants to think that they should be Elvis Presley. Both the person who thinks they're Elvis Presley and the person who believes they should want to be Elvis Presley both would be put in the same wing in the psych ward and would be treated exactly the same.
One of the things Hannibal Lector says to get Clarice to catch him is "what does he do....he covets....so how does he covet....by what he sees".
That sounds like "transgenderism" to me. They go out of their way to emulate these physical characteristics, even to the point of mutilating their bodies to achieve what they see.
Buffalo Bill mutilates others to emulate what he sees, that's the only difference.
If the motive for "trying to become a woman" defines if you're truly a "transsexual" or not, then the definition has no meaning. The motives for all "transsexuals" are messed up and all fall on a sliding scale of mental illness. There's no legitimate, non mentally ill area on that scale for "transgenderism".
When Buffalo Bill dances in front of the mirror with his penis tucked saying he'd "do himself" how is that any different from the countless fetish based motives with modern transgenderism?
I didn't make the rules here. The left says "if you idenitfy as a woman, you are one" and if Buffalo Bill were not a murderer, but were just a quirky guy posting photos of himself on Reddit 100% of leftist Redditors would "affirm" him and would say that he's stunning and brave.
The film makers playing pretzel knots with the script in order to justify why he's an exception and "no true scotsman" thing and people like me calling that out is not a lack of media literacy, it's a refusal to buy into their "when it's convenient determines the definition"
Fair point, but when you look it up, at least if AI is to be trusted, which it isn't, it says that the line was intentionally included by the filmmakers to "minimize harmful stereotypes".
You can ask Grok now "why in Silence of the Lambs does Hannibal say 'he's not a transsexual but he thinks he is', and unless it's only doing it for me, Grok cites the filmmakers wanting to avoid adding to "harmful stereotypes" at the time when they made the movie.
It's a 1 minute and 33 second video. It would take about that length to type and you to read as it would clicking on the less than 2 minute video where he articulates his views very well.