Not OP, but I agree with what you said, so I did it. A single img2img to clean up the whole thing in general but keeping the anime style since I assume that was intentional. Then some iteration on the hands and one on the hat to make it less ridiculous.
Then did a second img2img to make a photorealistic version.
Some notes of my own for OP: I don't know what you're using to generate, but your results don't seem great. Here are my first ten, totally unmodified results for "blonde steampunk girl at beach in bikini, anime style", and here are my first ten for the same thing, but "photorealistic". Get a model that looks good at https://civitai.com/ and read some of the prompts people use there. Also, AI still gets hands wrong a lot of the time. Especially if they're holding something like a gun. But it can be pretty good at faces and figures.
I would say most RTS games are hard because they're in real time and you have to manage a lot of units and your production at the same time, and know the correct unit composition to counter your opponent. In AI War 1 or 2, you can pause the game whenever you want and continue to issue orders, your economy is a consequence of how many and which planets you have rather than how regularly you're managing your workers, and your unit composition is more about figuring out how to make a good army out of a randomized selection. One of the hard parts of AI war- deciding which planets to take- has no analogue in normal RTS games. When you fail at AI war, it's not because you didn't move your units in the right pattern, and it's not because you didn't notice a dot on the radar in time, it's because you made a bad decision about your expansion strategy or you underestimated the AI response to something you did or you don't understand how one of the mechanics works. Actually, it's probably that last one, at least for your first couple games.
So in short, skills from a normal RTS wouldn't hurt, but AI War tends to be hard in different ways.
Beyond all reason is a large scale, fan-made, free RTS. Inspired by Total Annihilation, but most people would compare it to Supreme Commander. The maps are less huge, experimental units are cheaper and less game-ending, and building invincible shielded chokepoints is less viable, all things I think Supreme Commander went too far with. It has a lot of quality of life keybinds and the non-cheating AI feels solid, and there are enough people playing that multiplayer is also viable. I recommend 3v3s or bigger with barbarian-level AIs to make the game feel sufficiently interesting- 1v1s are still fun, but don't play into the game's strengths as much. It's in development, and the UI while setting up matches could be better, but otherwise I'd consider it's level of polish acceptable for a final release.
Starsector is probably the best space combat game around, if you don't mind that it's top down 2D. You start with as little as a single frigate and can scale up to a fleet of capital ships and several planets. The combat is designed well enough that it remains interesting for a very long time and pilot decision making has a high skill ceiling, helped by the fact that the enemy AI makes good decisions itself. Good mod support with a lot of excellent mods that add new factions and ships. There isn't a plot or any sort of main campaign missions, just general background lore, but I don't play games for their story. Singleplayer only.
If 2D is not for you and you want a space game where you pilot a ship in 3D space, try Everspace 2 for pure combat or X3 for empire building (Warning: all games by egosoft after X3 are complete trash), but I'm not sure if either of those count as indie.
AI War 1 and 2 are large scale space RTS games. The unique thing about them are that they're extremely asymmetrical- your opponent is an AI that went rogue and conquered nearly the entire human race. It starts with control of every planet in the universe except yours, and has infinite resources, but isn't actively at war with you. You don't win through direct confrontation, but by exploiting various flaws in it's logic, primarily the fact that it doesn't consider you a threat. Your "threat level" is not abstract- it is tracked as an integer and is displayed at the top of the screen, and it deliberately has a fairly predictable effect on the AI's behaviour, particularly at certain thresholds, playing into the theme that you're fighting a programmed AI, not a human. The strategy of the game comes down to analyzing the map and deciding which planets will give you tools which are worth the bump to your threat level while still maintaining a defensible front line. Both games come with several small expansions that make an already complex game potentially overwhelming, and the number of options available when generating a new game are at a level of complexity you would simply never find in a mainstream game. Learning enough to win your first game isn't trivial. This one is probably niche for a reason, but if you invest the effort, it's got a lot to offer. Can be played cooperatively if you have a friend who is as crazy as you are.
Frozen Synapse is a top-down tactical shooter, where you issue orders a few seconds at a time. During the planning phase, you plot what you think the enemy will do over the next five seconds of real time, tell your guys where to go and how to face, submit your orders, watch it all play out, then issue orders for the next five second turn, until someone runs out of guys. There are ten or so different kinds of weapons your guys can have, randomly generated maps, and a few different game modes, so there's quite a lot of variety in how the games play out. Good against AI or a person. Frozen Synapse 2 takes that and adds a strategic map to tie the combat together, but I'm not sure if it's an improvement. There's also a football variant called Frozen Endzone which I've never played.
The ruling was overturned after another psychologist found the emails “were consistent with an individual processing a traumatic event”
I remember reading an article titled something like "Inconsistencies in rape accusations are evidence of truth", and it was all about how we should expect rape accusers to contradict themselves. Find the right psychologist- and it's probably not that hard- and there is absolutely nothing in those emails that could have convinced him that they weren't true. If this one is using the words "consistent with a traumatic event", he is almost certainly one of those psychologists. #ListenAndBelieve.
Human hair wigs are possibly the most successful product sold on aliexpress, given how prevalent it always is on their front page. And I'm sure they're all sold to black women trying to pretend they have hair like asian women.
But if a game had a black woman with straight hair, it would definitely be considered a white supremacist statement. It's essentially an emperor's new clothes situation, only the ending is that the kid who speaks up gets killed by the emperor's guards. Everyone knows natural black hair is unattractive, including the women in question, but acknowledging that truth in any way makes you Literally Hitler. And so afros it is.
some people think that a person's body autonomy takes absolute priority
Some people claim they believe that because it sounds like a good argument. But the vast majority of those people don't ACTUALLY give a shit about bodily autonomy as we saw with the shot mandates. It won't stop them from continuing to use that argument, but they're massive hypocrites who are pretending to take a principled stand, when they actually just want the convenience of access to abortions and never cared about men's rights or bodily autonomy to begin with.
The average left voter will never see the results of their policies- the news they watch goes out of their way to not report immigrant crime, or the race of criminals in general if they aren't white; any economic problems they just blame on the last time someone on the right was in office or deny there's a problem to begin with; anti-male or anti-white policies get either ignored or propped up at every side with deliberately misleading or outright false statistics, and no one is ever told they lost their job or shot at a good education specifically because of affirmative action even if it's true; but watching a man dominate a bunch of women is something that the left can't hide, and in fact doesn't want to hide, because they think it's a good thing. The harm done to women's sports doesn't matter because women's sports are a joke and don't matter, and the upside is that normal people will actually be confronted, some of them for the first time, with the gap between what the left demands they believe and what reality actually is. The fact that the women who lose to it are statistically very likely to have voted for it is an extra bonus. Confronting normies with men in dresses winning women's sports and demanding they clap is the best recruitment drive the right has had for a long time, and could, in the long term, tip the scales on issues that actually matter.
TL;DR: Don't interrupt the enemy while they're making a mistake.
tl;dr: black people are fatter and more violent than White people, and here is why both of those are entirely White people's fault. So to solve it, we should throw even more money at blacks until they have the same outcomes despite making hugely worse decisions.
One of my favorite games is Egosoft's X3. Their next game, X: Reunion, has so many bugs that they almost cover up the abysmal design decisions underneath. Followed in turn by X4, which is mostly about proving true the concept that if you adjust expectations low enough, anything can seem like a success. There is no studio that is so fantastic that their next game can't be trash, even if all they're really doing is making the same game over and over.
The results. I put "protester" in too for one of the batches, which generated the ones with signs, and switched through a few models. I think it probably nailed their new flag here, the first coherent text I've seen it produce.
So taken as a whole, it thinks the left are overweight, very effeminate, balding men with rainbow hair and hipster mustaches, who draw extremely idealized versions of themselves when they put themselves on flags.
In a way, it's worse than banning, and it happens on all social media in one way or another. They all have their thumbs heavily on the scale of "the algorithm". At least with outright banning, you can explain to normies "Look, this is banned". With shadow banning, it takes a few sentences to explain it, then a few more to explain how drastically it limits how many people will see it, at which point they've lost interest or decided you're a conspiracy theorist or whatever. The purpose of shadowbanning is to effectively ban speech while denying a simple, clear cut talking point to people who care about freedom of speech.
The percentage of specifically children who would grow out of it is way, way higher than 30%. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I recall it was something like 80% of prepubescent children who think they are trans realize they aren't if they're allowed to go through puberty normally and un-groomed. Essentially it's children who don't have a lot of their sexual characteristics yet being told that feeling like they don't have those characteristics must mean they're trans, rather than just meaning that they're prepubescent.
First of all, the entire second paragraph there is borderline incoherent. But to address what I can make out: First up is a bait and switch. Going from "Having a attractive woman in fiction is evil" to "all women in fiction are subservient to men" and hoping you don't notice. Make them defend the actual point. Why is having an attractive woman in fiction bad? And why is having an attractive MAN in fiction NOT bad? The response to that question is 100% going to be thinly disguised hypocrisy. Chris Hemsworth is a good example: He appears shirtless in how many Marvel movies? Basically all of them? And in the most recent one, apparently he gets completely stripped against his will while the female heroes look on in interest and refuse to help, in a scene that's played for comedy. Imagine the genders reversed on that one. And he basically played an attractive bimbo in the super-feminist ghostbusters movie, who was hired in the movie because of his looks. The whole "It's a power fantasy for men" you're likely to hear is just an evidence-free assertion that boils down to "It's okay when we do it".
Second, "objectification". That's always been a stupid argument that relies on the listener being cowed into submission and not requiring terms to be defined. Women ARE objects. They have mass and take up space. Allowing them weak terms that change in definition to whatever is convenient at the time is not how you have an honest argument. As for "Women are sex objects", well, then why do they keep getting dialogue? Porn doesn't need dialogue. So if women are speaking, they're being treated as people.
Their role as dolls
Again, dolls don't talk. If you can't make your argument without using most of your words wrong, then maybe your argument sucks.
Sexualized women in games are bad because fictional characters dont have agency, so therefore these sexy female characters were made by men for the pleasure of other men.
That's what fictional characters are. Fictional men don't have agency either, because they also don't exist. All fictional characters are invented for the pleasure of the reader. This argument is retarded.
it is harmful to society and women,
Prove it.
and it also makes men see women as objects
Prove it. Also, see first paragraph above.
things like onlyfans, rap videos (like cardi b and nicki minaj), modeling, and social media
As you correctly identify, their position here contradicts their position above. That's because their position above is a lie. Their ACTUAL position is "Women are good, men are bad", and in particular "Female sexuality is good, male sexuality is dangerous and rapey", and they work backwards from that core belief to invent arguments to satisfy it. Their contradictory arguments suddenly fall perfectly into line if you instead imagine them asking the simple question: Who benefits? When a camwhore can pay her rent off broken simps so desperate for a female relationship they think they have one with a woman who they're paying online, it's easy to see who is benefiting: The woman who's getting paid, and it's about female sexuality, so it's "good". Female rappers selling their body? Again, it's a woman who benefits using female sexuality, therefore good. Modeling, social media, all the same. Now for the negative examples: Instead of a naked woman on onlyfans, a man draws a picture of the same woman. Who benefits? Well, it's a man getting paid, so it's bad, and if there's no woman involved, it must not be female sexuality, it must be for those dirty disgusting men to look at, therefore male sexuality, therefore bad. Or even if nobody is getting paid, if there's a man out there who might be happy, well, male sexuality is evil and bad and basically rape, so it's still bad. Hence the people upset that stable diffusion can generate pictures of attractive woman (and they're going to great efforts to stop that from happening in future versions): if a man out there is being made happy and a woman isn't benefiting from it financially, then it's unacceptable.
cultivation theory (the things you see around you (like media) affect how you see certain groups).
When every commercial with a married couple has a bumbling man and a long-suffering woman, when all of Star Wars and fiction in general is turned into one giant "Stupid men outdone by perfect woman" story, when men are basically driven out of the entire teaching profession, it's weird how all of a sudden none of that matters. Also, start counting how often men run risks to their life to protect women in media (or even better, real life), versus the opposite, and then ask yourself who's really being told that their gender is worth less than the other.
male gaze
Men looking at women is basically rape? Does this even need a counter-argument? Anyway, apply the Chris Hemmsworth argument if necessary.
A lot of them would say what amounts to "Because I don't trust republicans to teach their children right", revealing two things: First, that they don't think republicans should be allowed to raise their own children the way they want, and second, that deep down, they know the left has such an iron grip over education in this country that there's no real chance of the right using that same authority to control how their kids are raised, despite how many of them have convinced themselves they're "fighting the man" and that conservatives are "the establishment".