I don't know why troons are so obsessed with "scientiffically accurate" dinos (as well as speculative evolution). It has more troons than even analog horror and biblically accurate angels. But I don't know what makes it such slop for autistic troons, what's the through-line connecting it to biblically accurate angels, undertale, etc.
But I can sense some of that pretentious redditor energy.
>To be fair, you have to have a very high I.Q. to understand that le dinos had feathers, unlike those addlepated simpletons who've only heard of Jurassic Park, like my allegedly toxic masculine trump-supporting dad whom mom divorced when I was little so she could get his child support!This gets to the point where they misrepresent dinos. They're known as "feathernazis" to dinosaur fans.
>Some dinos had feathers? Then it means Ankylosaurus was fluffier than a bird!>Some modern herbivores occasionally eat small birds(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3NOhQlPGAU), therefore herbivorous dinosaurs ate carnivorous ones.>Some animals are albino, therefore it's not weird if I only draw albino dinosaurs.>I've seen baby lions playing once, therefore predatory animals actually spent their time playing rather than being predators.When they don't paint dinosaurs as adorable and/or majestic, they paint them as super fucked up with snoods and warts and other caruncles. And they don't even look ugly in a cool way, like a monster from the Witcher games or from Dark Souls. They just look stupid.
In other words, it's the novelty fallacy. They claim that depictions of dinosaurs that are edgy and novel are accurate not because of proof (otherwise they'd be more conservative in their depiction), but because they're novel for its own sake.
I hate these people. And Trey "the EXPLAINER" Swenton perfectly encapsulates this.
Also >>5911495 YOU FOOL, THIS BELONGS IN /AN/, AND NOT IN /CRAFT/, WTF ARE YOU THINKING BRO!?