The homeless problem in LA has been made fun of since the 80's. Mel Brooks made the hilarious Life Stinks in the 80's.
On the other hand, the homeless were talked about in Victorian fiction all the time. It's one of the reasons why so many don't realize Sherlock Holmes was more modern. The homeless network he uses has been known for a while.
I think that 2077 allows us to tell these stories in ways where—at the heart of it—there’s always relationships and people, but we’re in a really broken world and that we can call out some of these things,” he added.
The world is broken because the relationships are broken, and no ideology in human history has dedicated itself more to breaking up all human relationships for the sake of ideological homogeneity and dialectical narrative fulfillment MORE than Leftism.
You tear apart family, you tear apart friends, you tear apart neighborhoods, you tear apart communities, and then you ask "why is the social fabric damaged?"
Then, in your loneliness, like a fucking disease, you seek to infect and parasitize a community that you haven't destroyed; so that you can tear it apart because you don't feel loved.
They are demons wearing skin-suits on top of skin-suits, demanding to be loved by a world filled with burning bodies of their victims.
He has a point about our present society being even more bleak than cyberpunk dystopias, although he no doubt has no self-awareness as to how his own ideology has contributed to the problems he complains about. I'll even concede that cyberpunk as a genre is a lot more political than other genres of fantastical fiction.
But writers who write for "modern audiences" don't have anything close to the talent required to weave political themes into a setting and story where it blends into a convincing world with convincing characters and situations, they always have to break the fourth wall with their millennial snark rather than just allowing the audience to form their own interpretations.
My thoughts exactly. Escapism is a foreign concept. These are the same people who get upset when you tell them everything doesn’t have to be political
Ideological Totalism is contrary to the nature of Escapism.
Something can not be both total and escapable.
Meanwhile, actual totalitarians:
Totalitarians don't have Bread & Circuses. Autocrats and Tyrants do. They're a bit different.
The homeless problem in LA has been made fun of since the 80's. Mel Brooks made the hilarious Life Stinks in the 80's.
On the other hand, the homeless were talked about in Victorian fiction all the time. It's one of the reasons why so many don't realize Sherlock Holmes was more modern. The homeless network he uses has been known for a while.
The world is broken because the relationships are broken, and no ideology in human history has dedicated itself more to breaking up all human relationships for the sake of ideological homogeneity and dialectical narrative fulfillment MORE than Leftism.
You tear apart family, you tear apart friends, you tear apart neighborhoods, you tear apart communities, and then you ask "why is the social fabric damaged?"
Then, in your loneliness, like a fucking disease, you seek to infect and parasitize a community that you haven't destroyed; so that you can tear it apart because you don't feel loved.
They are demons wearing skin-suits on top of skin-suits, demanding to be loved by a world filled with burning bodies of their victims.
Poetic, bro.
He has a point about our present society being even more bleak than cyberpunk dystopias, although he no doubt has no self-awareness as to how his own ideology has contributed to the problems he complains about. I'll even concede that cyberpunk as a genre is a lot more political than other genres of fantastical fiction.
But writers who write for "modern audiences" don't have anything close to the talent required to weave political themes into a setting and story where it blends into a convincing world with convincing characters and situations, they always have to break the fourth wall with their millennial snark rather than just allowing the audience to form their own interpretations.