Wednesday, December 30, 2015

It's finally happening: Conservative Christians were right after all

Especially in the United States there's a brand of ultra-conservative highly homophobic Christians who, among other things, have loudly sensationalized how homosexuals are trying to convert children into homosexuality.

This conspiracy theory is quite ridiculous, and I have laughed at it as much as anybody else.

I'm not laughing as hard anymore.

Not exactly homosexuals per se, but feminists are finally making that conspiracy theory actually somewhat true. For instance:

80 primary school pupils a year seeking help to change gender
UK Police Target Schoolchildren As Young as FOUR With Tax Payer Funded, Transgender Propaganda
Boy aged 5 returns to school as a girl

It really is happening.

This is not just a question of raising awareness of transgenderism. It's actually encouraging kids as young as four years old into it.

This crosses the line.

No matter what your stance is on gender identity and transgenderism, it can be medically and scientifically argued that a person cannot know their "true" gender until at the very least completing their puberty. Hormones make all the difference in the world. It can change everything. It can even change things back and forth several times.

No matter how pro-gender-fluidity and pro-transgenderism you may be, you cannot deny this medical and physical fact. 4-year-olds cannot know their "true" gender. Not only have they not developed enough mentally to make informed rational decisions of their own, they haven't even reached puberty, which makes all the difference in the world.

Propaganda like this can make kids make decision that they may later deeply regret. In some cases the decision may be irreversible. Messing up kids' heads in this way is not only highly irresponsible, I would consider it outright criminal.

Consider, for instance, this sentence from that third article: "Children can take drugs to postpone puberty as well as hormone treatment, before NHS gender realignment surgery at 18." This is criminal and should be illegal. It is in no way any less horrible than, for example, performing routine lobotomies on children, which was surprisingly common in a few western countries not so long ago.

I have been saying this for a long time, and I will reiterate it here: Feminism is a dangerous and highly toxic ideology. It should be treated like a dangerous cult.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Why does George Lucas hate the original Star Wars?

What is the highest honor that a movie can receive in the United States?

Lots of Oscars and other film awards? Yeah, sure. However, I would argue that there is an even higher honor that can be bestowed on a movie (although, of course, this is subjective and a matter of opinion): Being inducted into the American National Film Registry.

The Registry was founded in 1988 for the purpose of officially preserving movies that are culturally and historically significant. Only a very, very small selection of movies get this honor: At most 25 movies are selected per year.

Oscar-winning movies are aplenty, and most of them are forgettable. I'm sure that if you try to think of any oscar-winning movies (no matter when they were made), you would remember just a tiny, tiny fraction of them. Only a very small portion of all oscar-winning movies are actually culturally and historically noteworthy.

And the original Star Wars, made in 1977, was this in droves. It was more than just a movie. It was a cultural phenomenon. It shaped moviemaking and culture. We are still talking about it to this day, and it still has huge amounts of avid fans. You cannot talk about popucultural history without talking about Star Wars.

The original Star Wars was among the first 25 movies ever inducted into the National Film Registry, in 1989. However, as per the rules of the Registry, only the original printing of the movie was to be accepted, so they requested it from George Lucas. What did he do?

He refused.

Now let that sink in for a moment. This is, arguably, the highest honor and accolade that a movie could ever receive in the United States. The entire world. This is arguably one of the most influential and culturally significant movies ever made. And he refused.

In 1997 George Lucas offered the Registry the "Special Edition" print of the movie. This was not accepted, because the rules of the Registry require the original print.

To this day, Lucas has refused to give it to them.

Why? Nobody knows. And we will probably never know. It's completely incomprehensible, and to my knowledge he has never given any rational explanation.

Moreover, Lucas has gone the extra mile to stop anybody anywhere from getting these original copies. (To my knowledge the only original print that has ever been available is one single reel, ie. an incomplete section of the movie, from its original theatrical run, which has been preserved by somebody, technically speaking illegally. Even this reel is badly scratched and has other artifacts due to wear and tear.)

"Why does it matter?" one would ask.

It matters because the original movie is an important piece of history. The "special editions" and other subsequent versions are heavily modified versions of the movie. For example, many of the award-winning special effects and costume design have been completely replaced with computer-generated shots, and many scenes and even (award-winning) music have been replaced or altered, and additional shots have been inserted. This heavily modifies and outright destroys the original historical film. (For example, from an academic perspective it would be an interesting subject of study of how movie special effects have changed over the years. One of the most groundbreaking special effects movies, which even got an oscar for it, has been censored and, effectively, self-banned, hindering this kind of research.)

Why does George Lucas hate the original Star Wars so much? Why is he refusing to release the high-quality original prints of the original?

We will probably never know.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Lowering video game graphical quality compared to E3

The game Watch Dogs became very infamous because its final release had quite drastically lowered graphical quality (even at maximum graphical settings) than what was showcased prior to launch at E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo.) People were disappointed that the final version of the game didn't look even nearly as good as what was shown at the expo.

The thing is, the footage shown at E3 was, ostensibly, video of real-time gameplay, not some pre-rendered graphics. In other words, the developers themselves had a PC that could run the game at that graphical fidelity with a good framerate. Therefore most high-end PC gamers likewise would have had a gaming PC capable of running it. Thus these gamers felt a bit cheated and robbed when what they got was visibly of lower graphical quality, even at full settings.

Watch Dogs is not the only example. Other examples of exactly this include Far Cry 3 and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Both of them had E3 pre-launch demo videos with higher graphical quality than what was in the final release.

But why? Why do they do this? What exactly is the purpose? Why show something at E3, usually real-time gameplay footage, and then deliberately lower the graphical quality?

It is not a question of making the game runnable on PC's with lower specs. That can be done with graphics options within the game. There is nothing stopping a video game from having the full quality graphics options showcased in pre-releases, and lower options for slower PC's. The vast majority of PC games do this (including those three mentioned above.) It's just that, for an unknown reason, these games are deliberately crippled before launch, and even the maximum graphical options available in the game lowered.

Many have presented the hypothesis that they do this deliberately in order to bring the PC version graphically closer to the console versions of the game.

There's no way around it: Consoles always have lower specs than the highest-end PC's. (For example, the PlayStation 4, which is essentially the highest-powered game console currently on the market, has a graphics chip that's approximately as powerful as an Nvidia GTX 4xx or GTX 5xx series card, which is laughably old. Even the cheaper modern mid-range Nvidia cards are twice as fast as that.)

The hypothesis is that they don't want the console version of the game looking drastically of lower graphical quality than the high-end PC version, which is why they make the PC version look the same as the console version at its best.

If that's true, the question still remains of why. Maybe it's some kind of marketing tactic (misaimed or effective, who knows.)

It really is kind of a dick move to first tease gamers with awesome-looking graphics, and then take them away, without any possibility of getting them.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Weight loss and feminism

I was watching an episode of the TV series Extreme Makeover Weight Loss Edition. The episode was about a woman who weighted 133 kg (292 lbs), was in extremely poor shape, suffered from psoriasis mostly caused by her weight, and was extremely unhappy about her life. So unhappy, in fact, that she confessed that she had been seriously considering taking her own life prior to being contacted by the TV show.

(Now, I understand that these American reality TV shows really love to sensationalize things, and create extra drama via editing and coaxing their participants. However, such a thing as suicidal thoughts is so serious that, unless somebody can definitively prove to me otherwise, I'm willing to believe that the woman was being completely serious and honest, rather than being coaxed by the show's producers into telling such a lie, as that would be a new low even for such a TV show.)

During the course of a year she lost weight from 133 kg to 73 kg (162 lbs), which is basically ideal weight for a woman of her height, and she became extremely fit (being able to basically go through a half-triathlon of sorts in a very good time.)

At the end of the year she was clearly extremely happy and enthusiastic about her weight loss, having turned her life around completely. (Again, American reality TV shows like to sensationalize, but once again, unless somebody can prove to me definitively that this was completely staged, I'm willing to believe that she was being genuine. And why wouldn't it be.)

What, however, would have been the end result if rather than a reality-TV show getting to her, and encouraging her to become ideal weight an really fit, it had been modern feminists that would have got to her instead?

She would have been actively discouraged from losing weight and becoming fitter.

"You are beautiful as you are. Don't let the unhealthy images of beauty created by the society and the beauty industry depress you. Society is simply fat-shaming you. Different people are simply different, and have different builds. No people are better than others. You are perfect as you are."

If feminists had gotten to her instead of this TV show, she would still to this day be extremely overweight, in very poor shape, suffer from psoriasis, and most probably very unhappy about herself and her life. Who knows, maybe she would have committed suicide by now. Not only would have feminists told her that she does not have to lose weight, moreover they would have actively discouraged her from doing so. "You are beautiful as you are. You don't need to change. It's other people's fault, not yours. You are not at fault here. You don't need to change."

Losing weight and becoming fit is not only a question of self-image and self-perceptions. It's a question of health. This woman, after that year, was living a significantly healthier and more fulfilling life than before it. Barring unforeseen diseases, she is probably going to live longer than she would have otherwise. And, more importantly, the quality of her life, both physical and mental, are much better now.

Modern feminism is a dangerous ideology. This is one of the many reason why I vehemently oppose it.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

"Safe spaces" in universities are illegal

In the United States (and some other countries) brave people fought to end racial segregation, which was rampant and really egregious. Today, spoiled privileged entitled rich kids at universities want it back.

They are demanding "safe spaces" at universities, which are effectively "no whites allowed" zones. And the staff of these universities are caving in into every such demand, like sheep.

All these people seem to forget that racial segregation is illegal in the United States. It was criminalized in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which full text you can read here.)

Here are some relevant excerpts:
"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
"All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof."
"No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202."
Likewise these self-righteous students are demanding the universities to engage in preferential treatment based on race when hiring university staff, which is also illegal.
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
"Safe spaces" are illegal. Discrimination in employment based on race is illegal. Yet they are getting away with it, with impunity. It baffles my mind.