There's definitely a spectrum, from "genuinely good-faith, trying-to-learn questions" through "exhausting labor that really could be asked of Google instead" and "veiled demands for assurances that the demander isn't a bad person" to "bad-faith attacks on peoples' rights."

I don't have a good word for the middle there, for all that it's very definitely a thing. Your description there is really good - one of the hallmarks of our Very Enlightened and Totally Post-Prejudice Privileged Majority is wanting to sit down and civilly debate other peoples' experiences and rights and existences. And that feeds systematic injustices, as you've noted, because people keep wanting to find a nice civilized compromise...

Yeah, "asking questions is violence" is itself a position to be far more careful with than I was in that (rather hyperbolic) paragraph. Sharing knowledge is, in the abstract, a good thing. But... it's a spectrum. There are "questions" that are, as NewKryptonite said, rhetorical - they exist to carry a message that's harmful, that incites violence, and the people asking them from the very darkest end of the spectrum have gotten rather good at using those midpoints as cover. (To the point where, on the other side, people like me are hyper-vigilant for questions that smell like such. And someone pointing at a fictional woman and saying "maybe she isn't clean," is... wow.)

-Delta, tossing a few more thoughts into the processor, in hopes that they'll help explain her reactions earlier

as in full of rhetoric, designed to inflame, or dramatize, not really looking for an answer.

Yea, i don't think all questions are created equal, just that they all should be allowed to be asked, hopefully by people actualy searching for answers. Some people use them as sheilds against critial thinking and alternate perspectives, or even as atagonistic rallying calls, those questions are garbage and should be devoutly ignored, because they're not really being asked at the end of the day.
(i suppose you could also counter them with opposing rhetoric, much like the post that inspired all this! my mind is blown)

To echo Larf, I'm not calling transhumanism inherently transphobic. It is a theme, nothing more, and only one of several themes that are central to cyberpunk. However, themes don't exist in vacuums - they have similarities to things in the real world, which is what gives them their emotional impact. Even when they aren't deliberately, explicitly used as metaphors, you can't play with concepts like "people using technology to change their bodies" without touching on the people in the real world, right now, who are doing the same.

And in those spaces, creators need to be a little bit careful, because the un-nuanced message of "(fictional) people who use (fictional) technology to change their bodies are unclean" sounds an awful lot like "(real) people who use (real) technology to change their bodies are unclean," especially when there are already real groups of people, who use real technology to change their bodies, who are already seen as unclean. Sure, it's maybe not intentional, but they're amplifying a message that gets people killed.

Thank you for bringing up Deus Ex! It's a great example, because it uses augmentation as a theme to talk about discrimination. We see systematic, structural discrimination against augs in Mankind Divided, from the very first trailer, as well as violent responses to it. In contrast, in the heavily-analyzed scene in 2077, the creator invites us to sit in judgement on an augmented body. Here is a defenseless person, the game says, all their secrets exposed to the universe. Are they clean or unclean? Does this person's existence have value, or have they modified their body too much? Are they too far from normal human?

To make it as clear as I can: "is this person human enough?" is a terrifying question to ask.

Because. Hi. Only twenty-one states of the United States agree that I'm human enough that an assault on my person motivated by the changes I've made to my body is a hate crime. Only twenty-two agree that I'm human enough that I can't be fired for no other reason than the changes I've made to my body.

This isn't about "an intrusion of identity politics into popular entertainment." This is about people like me saying "the creators of this game are using a massive platform to blast messages that reinforce biases that kill us." And if you find my speaking up about it "disgusting and abhorrent", well - I'm sorry if you're offended or triggered by it.

I do have a couple questions and concerns on earlier posts:

I really don't see how you're reading "in the eyes of people opposed to the singularity" into that quote. Before explaining the scene (the paragraphs before the quote in question), the article introduces the team's perspective with "Badowski said that in the final game, his team intends to have full nudity [...] because it supports one of the most important themes in the cyberpunk genre: transhumanism". That's called back to after the scene is introduced, with a direct quote, "“Nudity is important for us because of one reason,” Badowski said. “This is cyberpunk, so people augment their body. So the body is no longer sacrum [sacred]; it’s profanum [profane].”" And after another few sentences, quoted directly from Badowski, we get to the line I spent time on previously: "She is not clean." The entire section of the article is written discussing the team's, and Badowski's, perspectives on transhumanism, there's no introduction of any other perspective. (Also, there's no discussion of the Singularity in the articles I linked - I'm assuming I can just substitute "people opposed to transhumans" in to your reading?) Can you clarify how you're getting to "in the eyes of people opposed to the singularity," please?

In your self-reply, the only explanation I can see for your entire fourth sentence is that you're reading a couple big logical leaps into my position: First, going from "Cyberpunk 2077 is using transhuman themes in ways that hurt trans people" to "transhuman themes in cyberpunk as a genre hurt trans people," and secondly, that my call to arms from that is "clearly, we can and should have cyberpunk without transhuman themes," to which the obvious response is, as you said, "it really wouldn't be recognizably cyberpunk if you start ripping out core themes." Is that a reasonable summary of how you got from "staple concept of the genre as attack" to "it's like saying you can have [genre] without [theme]?"

And third: The title of the book has always been Neuromancer, no definite article. If you're going to name-drop one of the foundational works of a genre with a lead in like "dating back to [author's] excellent novel [title]", please do try to get the title correct? It kinda makes it look like you don't really know what you're talking about otherwise.

Fourth and finally: "I can't be transphobic, I have trans friends!" is just about the least persuasive argument ever.

I do hope you enjoy your game. I'm not asking you to not play it, or even to not spend money on it. What I do ask of you is this:

As you're playing, ask yourself: What are the messages this game is sending about people who aren't like you?

As you're playing, ask yourself: What are the messages this game is sending about humanity?

As you're playing, ask yourself: What are the messages this game is sending about people who have redefined their humanity?

As you're playing, ask yourself: What are the messages this game is sending about corporations, and how they interact with people who aren't like you?

In less words: Please consume it, and please consume all media, critically. Think about the messages that are there. Think about how they sound in the real world. And especially think about what they imply about people who are already viewed as "abnormal", on any spectrum - be it neurodivergence, race, ability, gender, and so on.

I'm sure you aren't. You aren't transphobic for playing Cyberpunk 2077, either. You don't need to demonstrate how progressive you personally are--it's fine. We aren't really gonna judge you on that, either way. That simply isn't relevant.

I'll just say this:

Popular entertainment has always had identity politics. Everything is inherently political because everything inherently deals with what is good versus what is bad, what is normal versus what is abnormal.

The only thing that's changing is people are getting sick of being erased in media, and corporations are realising they can make money off this.
I know a whole lot more mixed race people in real life than I've ever seen in media, and we're a pretty damn privileged bunch compared to most, at least where I am.

I consider it pretty disgusting and abhorrent, myself, that there's a whole lot of people whose mere existence is considered a bold, revolutionary political act. Rather than, you know, just people existing, and their existence being acknowledged in media. Because these people exist, you know.

The fact of the matter is that anything that you think isn't political, or doesn't have 'intrusive identity politics', is just political stuff that doesn't challenge your worldview.
The claim that something 'isn't political' isn't anything more than propaganda.


I dunno man. I'm sorry if this seems harsh. You're not a bad person or anything, and I don't want you to think I'm calling you a bad person. But, uh, there you go.