Tom Cruise is an odd one for me. The idea I have of Tom Cruise is that he always plays the same character, is just a generic action star, etc. And then whenever I actually watch Tom Cruise in a film, I’m always really impressed by just how good an actor he is. But I still can’t shake the idea I have of Tom Cruise.

I have a similar issue with Brad Pitt, where my idea of him is that he’s just a generic leading man, despite him almost always putting in a really strong, nuanced and varied performance.

I feel like no amount of trailers or reviews are going to give me an idea of what to expect from this film, and it feels like I’ll probably not know what I think about it until several days after the credits have rolled.

I’m not convinced it will be a good film, but it absolutely seems like a must-see for me.

Of course, take your time! I think Blade Runner 2049 is such a deep and complex film that you have to let all the ideas percolate anyway.

PS, @Blaze, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this, especially with the film being so fresh in your mind!

I think it’s a film where most people are being objectified and in some cases pretty senselessly murdered! Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista’s character) is senselessly murdered. Joe/K attempts to senselessly murder Deckard. Joe/K is left to die on the steps at the end of the film. Ultimately, I think it’s less about any kind of gender divide and more that almost everyone is just a victim of extreme capitalism. Everyone is dehumanised in the name of profits. Everyone is made to compete with everyone else for what scarce resources remain. And that’s especially true for the “secondary citizens” the film largely spends its time with - replicants, women, orphans, poor people. Slaves.

If patriarchy and violence against women weren’t a problem or if the film were about those issues, then all good.

I’d go so far as to say that patriarchy, violence against women and fertility are major themes of the film. With replicants existing, we see a world where women aren’t needed to create life. With overpopulation and resource scarcity, we see a world where having children is less desirable anyway. The film’s larger narrative focuses on Wallace, who is very much patriarchal himself and also representative of the patriarchal ruling class in the setting, wanting to discover how to make replicants reproduce because breeding replicants would be cheaper, quicker and easier for him than building them from scratch.

Wallace is cruel, power-hungry, sadistic, and dreams of electric wombs - of a world where women aren’t necessary (because he only sees them in terms of their “function”) and he can play god. He’s very much painted as the villain - one gory scene shows him quite literally see him cutting into where the wombs of female replicants would be because he sees their infertility as a failure and something that makes them worthless to him.

Blade Runner 2049 goes far beyond using the sad prostitute and the destitute brothel to signify dystopia; it fully integrates them into its plot and takes a deeply anti-patriarchal stance.

It feels like other options were available and, TBH, using female objectification/ownership/subordination/violence as a vehicle and marker for dystopia is perhaps lazy and trope-ish.

I don’t feel like it leans into them so much that they become tropes, personally, and I don’t think men fare much better either. But while women’s sex appeal is commodified - quite literally with pleasure models, the most clinical, corporate name possible for sex robots - we also see combat models and blade runners commodifying violence. Some of these roles are filled by humans doing what they can to survive in a capitalist system trying to crush them; others are replicants or AI literally designed and manufactured for those roles. I don’t think any of them were used as markers for a dystopia so much as being part of the fabric of the world, the story and the themes.

For me, as much as I like the film, I don’t think it’s story and point quite get to the point of making what happens to women in it feel justified in our current era.

I really don’t think what happens to men in the film is much better. The film is miserable for everyone in it - it’s an equal-opportunity dystopia. The only person not being crushed by the world and the system is Wallace, and not only is he the oppressor (so, y’know, not much sympathy there…) but he also doesn’t come across as too happy either.

Perhaps a bit more like the story of the protagonist in BR 2049 (who’s of course male).

Joe/K might be the main character of the film but he’s not special, and that’s the point. His entire character arc is that he starts off feeling like any other replicant - ie, not feeling much at all because of all the emotional suppression - before daring to hope that he might be special and becoming more and more in touch with his humanity as a result. As the story progresses, he becomes convinced that he is indeed special. And then it turns out he’s not, and he decides to give up his life to help someone - a woman - and that is when he really becomes special.

Almost everything that happens to Joe/K in the film is at the direction of women. His boss - the police chief - is a woman. The person who implanted his memories - and who is responsible for implanting all replicant memories - is a woman. The person who leads the replicant resistance is a woman. His direct antagonist in the film - Luv - is a woman. A lot of his emotional development comes from being prompted by Joi, a female AI. Almost everything that happens to Joe/K ultimately happens because of a woman, because they are the ones who are really playing the game around him.

I think Blade Runner 2049 is a deeply, deeply feminist film. It doesn’t shy away from depictions of female objectification/ownership/subordination/violence - they are important for telling its story and getting across its themes - but it sure as hell doesn’t endorse them either.

When I saw the film I had some female friends tell me they felt uncomfortable with objectification and portrayal of women in the film. And I can’t disagree. But I always felt that there was an underlying truth to the dystopia of the film that explained that objectification, though perhaps does not justify it.

I think the film does justify the objectification, although it does still make me uncomfortable.

Joi is sold as an object / product in the film. We see her advertised all over the place, and I think we are supposed to see her as an AI girlfriend and feel a little sorry for Joe, at least initially - he’s replacing a real relationship with an object pretending/programmed to love him.

And then we start to realise that that’s not really the case. “Our” Joi has memories with him, and her personality with him is clearly different to the default personality we see in the advertisements. And so what if she’s programmed anyway? - that doesn’t make the feelings Joe has any less real.

The main theme in the first Blade Runner, and still a major theme in 2049, is having the audience ask themselves “is a replicant really any different to a human, really?”. The clearly have feelings and are defined by both those and their memories (implanted or real) in the same way “real” humans are, even if replicants were constructed. I can’t help but feel that Joi, and AI in general, is the logical progression of that line of thinking - if an AI is bringing up memories, emulating feelings, etc, then should you treat them any differently to a human? And does the influence the AI has on humans’ (or replicants’, which I think we already established to essentially be the same as humans) feelings not mean that AI can have just as much value to humans?

I think Joi being not just treated as an object in the story but objectified is kind of key to having people consider that. The first Blade Runner very much did the same thing but with replicants, and we’ve seen other media do similar with gender/race/sexuality/etc. It can be much more powerful to belittle/objectify/discriminate against a character and then tear that down and ask the audience to consider why it was wrong, than to just never bring it up in the first place.

I also just think the dystopia is kind of the point and objectifying women is a part of that dystopia. The film doesn’t revel in objectifying women but rather women being objectified is yet another thing about the film that highlights how dystopian it is. The film doesn’t try to normalise it in real life or make you feel comfortable with it; it just presents it to you as something that’s normal in the setting, similar to the huge amount of garbage, similar to the capitalist hellscape, similar to Las Vegas being an irradiated wasteland, similar to replicants being hunted down, similar to Joe being a replicant… Very little about the film is meant to be aspirational or comfortable - the opposite, in fact - and singling out the objectification and portrayal of women just feels a little odd to me.

You can just say “well they’re stupid that’s what you get” or you can ask yourself why aren’t we getting these people on board while some greasy billionaire can?

I don’t necessarily like to just dismiss people as stupid, but a lack of education and the ability to understand complex issues is both a big issue for these people and a reason why the greasy billionaires can get them on board. Convincing someone that them paying some of their money into a union will actually result in better working conditions and more money for them - rather than just being poorer - is a lot harder and takes more understanding on their part than someone convincing them there’s less money to go around because there are more immigrants, for instance.

On top of that, people like to be able to absolve themselves of personal responsibility if they are given the option to. That’s not exclusive to right-wing people, but when that’s coupled with people wanting simple “explanations” because they don’t understand more complex systems with all their consequences, knock-on effects, etc, it makes it easy for right-wing politicians and media to offer simple scapegoats and get people on board.

To use the immigrants example again: not only is it not your average right-wing voter’s fault in any way - it’s the immigrants’ fault - but also, they don’t personally need to do anything to fix the issue, they just need to let the right-wing politicians get into power and it’ll all be solved for them. It’s all very comforting for them - much more so than being told it’s going to take ten years and some work on their part to improve things.

Those underlying issues are what left-wing people are trying to resolve already, though - wealth inequality, poor mental health, too much power in the hands of corporations and the mega-rich, removing outrage politics, etc.

Those are the best kinds of compliments in general, I think, whether it’s a parent complimenting their child, someone flirting, a platonic compliment, or whatever else! Compliment things that are within their control and that they can feel pride over and it feels a lot more meaningful.

I think it’s best not to get caught up worrying about the “early access” tag and to just evaluate what the game is like right now instead.

Factorio and Last Epoch are both games that I bought in early access (they’ve both fully released now, though) and, at the time I purchased them, I think they were worth my money. They’ve both only improved since that time, which is great, but even if they were never updated again after I bought them, I would have considered them very worthwhile purchases. I played both for hundreds of hours in their early access states and had fantastic times with them (and still do post-full release, too).

And then, conversely, there are plenty of games that are fully released that aren’t worth your time or money despite not being “early access”.

As someone who doesn’t care for card games or poker: yes, it’s really that good!

So as per @Kierunkowy74’s reply to me, limiting (basically what I described) is a feature on Mastodon already. It basically just sets things to follower-only mode on a per-instance basis. I’m not sure how well that would translate to the threadiverse, but I do think some level of opt-in integration would be best.

To go on a slight tangent: I’ve never used Imgur as anything other than a image hosting site, but I’m aware it has people that use it as a social network in its own right. Whenever I’ve hosted anything on Imgur in the past - even images that don’t need any context - I’ve noticed it always ended up downvoted and sometimes with some negative comments, while the reception on reddit was generally far better. It doesn’t bother me - like I said, I just used it as an image host - but it’s clear Imgur has its own culture. Threads could be the same, and trying to merge its culture with ours could prove difficult.

I don’t know what full-on federation with Threads would look like, but federating vote counts could definitely lead to Threads culture overwhelming threadiverse culture. But I assume that’s also something that can be done on a per-instance basis; I know kbin (which I use) already doesn’t federate downvotes from other instances, for example.

I’m not sure I have a fully-formed opinion on it all yet, unfortunately. I don’t like the idea of cutting Threads off completely unless they do something to earn defederation. I think finding a way to smoothly federate with Threads could give the fediverse a boost in users that could be significant for more niche communities that haven’t managed to find a large enough audience yet (because yes, I’m still missing some of the smaller communities from reddit). But I do also think there are very valid concerns about both the long-term and immediate impacts Threads could have on the fediverse.

That sounds like a good solution. I don’t want to need an account on a different platform to see Threads, but I also don’t want the feeds to just be overrun by Threads users, and that seems to achieve that.

I guess the ideal situation as far as I’m concerned would be for users to be able to choose that setting on an individual basis. Obviously anyone can set up their own instance and achieve that, but being able to do it without being an instance admin would be the best.

Personally, I would like to be able to follow individual Threads users if I so desire but not have Threads content showing up in my All feed. I don’t know if that’s possible with how federation/individual blocking currently works, but it would be the ideal, I think.

Other way around: consoles are there to sell Game Pass. Microsoft wanted to put it on PlayStation, in fact, but Sony wouldn’t allow it. It’s been clear for quite a few years that MS has been prioritising software over hardware.

There’s barely any profit to be made in console sales themselves. They often start out the console generation as loss-leaders, in fact, and then as the manufacturing scales and becomes cheaper they’ll see small profits per console. But making $50 profit on a console sale is nothing compared to the cut they take on software (game) sales and subscriptions. A $70 game where the storefront takes a 30% cut means they take $21 per game sale. Not all of that will be pure profit, of course - there are some infrastructure costs and such - but let’s assume the average person buys three games per year; that’s ~$60 per year, rather than the one-off $50 from the console sale. And obviously that number goes up the more games someone buys, whereas the profit on the console is static.

Microsoft has stated that Game Pass is profitable in its own right.

There certainly was some actual “ethics in video game journalism” discussion early on that I felt was legitimate, but that got drowned out pretty quickly by the misogynists (which, from what I gather, was the entire point - it seems the misogynists started the whole thing and used the “ethics in game journalism” thing as a front to try to legitimise their agenda).

I think the discussion about the personal relationships game journalists have with developers in general was a reasonable one to have. It unfortunately ended up just laser focusing on Zoe Quinn supposedly trading sex for good reviews, which was untrue, sexist and resulted in nasty personal attacks. But I think it was worth at least examining the fact that game journalists and game developers often have close relationships and move in the same circles, and that game journalism can often be a stepping stone to game development. Those are absolutely things that could influence someone’s reviews or articles, consciously or subconsciously.

And another conversation worth having was the fact that gaming outlets like IGN were/are funded by adverts from gaming companies. It makes sense, of course - the Venn diagram of IGN’s (or other gaming outlets’) readers and gaming companies’ target audience is almost a perfect circle, which makes the ad space valuable to the gaming companies. And because it’s valuable to gaming companies, it’s better for the outlets to sell the ad space to them for more money than to sell it to generic advertising platforms. But it does mean it seems valid to ask whether the outlets giving bad reviews or writing critical articles might cause their advertisers to pull out, and therefore they might avoid being too critical.

Now I don’t think the games industry is corrupt or running on cronyism, personally. And I certainly don’t believe it’s all run by a shadowy cabal of woke libruls who are trying to force black people, women (and worse, gasp black women shudder) into games. But I do feel it was worth asking about the relationships between journalists, developers, publishers and review outlets - and honestly, those are the kinds of things that both game journalists and people who read game journalism should constantly be re-evaluating. It’s always good to be aware of potential biases and influences.

The fact that the whole thing almost immediately got twisted into misogyny, death threats and a general hate campaign was both disappointing and horrifying. And the fact that it led to the alt-right, and that you can trace a line from it to Brexit and to Donald Trump becoming US president, is even worse.

I can’t believe they’ve delayed it again!

Is also worth noting that it’s not just the moderation practices of your instance that affects your experience, it’s also how other instances perceive your instance. Hexbear, for example, is an instance filled with “tankies” and a lot of other fediverse instances don’t agree with them or their values and choose to defederate from them. So a Hexbear user, while they might personally like their own instance’s moderation and values, will not see any content from instances that have defederated with Hexbear, which could impact their experience enough that they’d rather move instance.

(Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a comment from a Hexbear user that I’ve loved. And I’ve definitely personally blocked several of their communities from showing in my feed.)

In the past, I know some instances defederated from lemmy.world because it was seen as kind of spammy. Some of them re-federated after lemmy.world tightened up its moderation, but I don’t know of all of them did. (I’m not a lemmy user so it doesn’t affect me personally and therefore I don’t keep too much track of it.)

Inter-instance politics aren’t necessarily a thing you need to be hyper-aware of, but they can definitely shape your experience.

KOAN Sound - Led By Ancient Light definitely tops my list.

And a couple of King Gizzard and the Wizard Lizard albums, but I’ve seen them mentioned already! I’m sure there are probably some more that I’m blanking on right now - I’ll check my music library and edit this if I think of some more!

I’m not sure I see how they’re comparable. Progressivism requires the ability to progress; if we somehow create a completely perfect utopia then there will be no room for progressivism, but otherwise there will always be some way to improve things and progress. In practice, there will always be some way to improve society which means infinite progressivism surely isn’t unreasonable?

Infinite growth isn’t possible because infinite money doesn’t exist, it’s as simple as that. And if infinite money did exist, infinite growth wouldn’t be possible because everything would already be infinitely large and therefore unable to grow any further…

… but beyond that, it also requires more and more people who can afford whatever the product/service in question is. Which requires either infinite people, infinite money or both. And as the product/service grows and prices likely increase, people will priced out of the market which is the opposite of infinite growth.

It’s also worth considering that progressivism is a mindset that is aiming for zero - zero problems, zero inequality, zero bigotry, etc. It’s not about pushing for infinite anything, it’s about trying to reduce existing issues. And while it’ll likely never reach its goal, it’s not theoretically or mathematically unreachable. It’s much more realistic to attempt to reduce something to zero than it is to increase it to infinity.