#cyberpunk media

[psionicblades]

Cyberpunk Media is rising again! Glad to be here and now

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

The cyberpunk aesthetic tells us right off the bat that whatever we’ve sat down to read/watch/play is set in ~the future~. Right?

In this episode, Ariel and Christina discuss cyberpunk’s origins not just as an intentional intervention into the science fiction genre imagination, but how it currently is used as a shorthand for a certain type of future - and whether it can really be said to be a future at all.

[feeblebeeble]

=^._.^= ∫

his name is candel and despite having the highest humanity score out of the whole squad, homie is set off by _everything_ lmao

[fullgrimdark]

done! tumblr killed the quality etc etc. meet Lancehead and Cicada art by me, don't repost etc etc. ♡

[monkeyartfiend]

hi I love drawing these two.

also hello shitty attempt at doing a bg

[hellowithmellow]

Concerned citizens of Central City-

After the massacre at Cassandra’s party, the people deserve to know the names of those slaughtered at the hands of the errant protohuman. Those responsible for this should be held accountable for their actions, despite the clueless police. We mourn those who lost their lives today.

[net runners names with code names ]

And Isabelle Murdock.

Stay ever vigilant, and as always stay mellow.

-Hello with Mellow, Mellow Reid

[tshortik]

Turn on "prevent third-party sharing" in your settings!

Go into your settings, click on your blog name, scroll down and enable "prevent third-party sharing". I'm gonna be honest, I question how much/if this even prevents any AI bullshit, but do it just in case anyway.

Edit: On Mobile it's the Settings Gear, Visibility, Prevent third-party sharing.

You have to turn that on for all your blogs separately.

[karamelise]

Promotional material for the canceled 2004 anime film "t.A.T.u Paragate", a film centered on the Russian pop duo t.A.T.u. Newtype Magazine, 2003

[warakami-vaporwave]

Twitter84

[danneroni]

🛜💎 Enter The Wired 💎🛜

[queer-media-tourney]

[yoan-le-grall]

[veshialles]

i love you fictional vehicles that become a main character in the story by extension, i love you ships with iconic names that turn into a home for the characters, i love you humanized modes of transportation with imagined personality quirks, i love you sapient starships with real personality quirks, i love you inherent human ability to emotionally bond with literally anything

[cyberianpunks]

technology is not mere tool-making... it is the creation of metaphors

[cy-cyborg]

It will never not be frustrating to me that amputees appear in fiction ALL. THE. TIME. and yet they're almost never acknowledged as such. The Cyberpunk genre is especially guilty of this: amputees and prosthetics becoming a normalised part of life are a defining part of the genre/aesthetic and yet no one even consults with any amputees about how we get represented there. Most writers in those genres don't even consider that giving your characters cybernetic arms and legs means they're an amputee.

CW: Ableism, dehumanisation

This makes it REALLY uncomfortable to engage with stories in the genre because another common aspect of cyberpunk is the idea of losing yourself and becoming something distinctly not-human anymore because you have too many cybernetic augmentations/implants. Shadowrun even has mechanics for this, which state if you get too many prosthetics, which is what cybernetics are 9 times out of 10, your character becomes a monster. These mechanics and discussions surrounding "how many robot bits make you not human anymore" are really, really uncomfortable when you remember this isn't something that's unique to a far-off future setting. Those people you're discussing the humanity of already exist. They're called amputees. If you reframe the question as "how many amputations can you have before you stop being a person" I hope you can see why an amputee like myself is not going to feel safe around you or in your fandoms.

And it's a shame, because I REALLY want to like Cyberpunk. I really, honestly do. I love the aesthetics, I love the idea of big corporations being the villains and the anti-capitalism at the heart of the genre, and I love the idea of prosthetics being not only destigmatised, but desirable. When written from a disability-inclusive lense, it honestly has the potential to be an incredibly uplifting and empowering genre. but as the genre stands right now, it's actively hostile to the very folks who are usually the stars of its stories: amputees, all because people just refuse to acknowledge us.

Cyberpunk isn't the only genre guilty of this, it's common all throughout sci-fi as a whole, but Cyberpunk is the only one where it starts becoming a serious issue due to its rampant dehumanisation of a real group of people. In other sci-fi settings, it's just kind of annoying and while it can be a form of erasure, it's not usually harmful, just...frustrating. Fantasy does it on occasion too, think pirates with a hook and a peg leg, but nowhere near as much.

If you, as an author or creator, use any of these words to describe a character or their tech in a sci-fi setting:

cybernetics/cybernetic enhancements

bionics

robot limbs

cyborgs

augmentations

You are probably writing an amputee. Please, at the very least, acknowledge it, and be mindful that those are real people who actually exist, not just a fantasy group you can speculate about.

edit:

I originally posted this article on my old Tumblr account and lot of people commented/reblogged to tell me that originally in cyberpunk, the "less human the more robot bits you have" only applied to people who opted for their limbs to be replaced by cybernetics, because it was seen as "renting out your body to corporations for money" but people who had to get cybernetics out of necessity weren't impacted. The thing is though, I really don't think that makes it better, for a few reasons. For one, where do you draw the line at "opting" to get a cybernetic prosthetic? This isn't a black and white thing, even in real life. Most amputations are done out of necessity, but there are situations where it's not the only option, just the best one. Talking from personal experience, I lost both my legs below the knee as a baby, that was a pretty clear cut case, I had a blood infection and gangrene and they had to act fast. But the infection caused lasting side effects and impacted my physical body's development and growth. By the time I got to my early 20's it was causing a lot of pain in my right leg, in my knee specifically, and when I got a bone infection in the end of that stump, I chose to have the whole thing amputated up to the knee. They only needed to take a few inches off the end of my stump, but I asked them to go higher, because of the ongoing issues in that knee, issues that would have been made worse by the shortening of the leg. I choose to remove the whole thing, knowing the joint was degrading and I probably would have lost it later in life anyway. Even if it was salvageable, it would mean much more surgery, and I've had enough of those. A boy I played wheelchair basketball with was born with a partially formed leg, it was half the size of his other leg and he wasn't able to use it al all, it was just dead weight, so he opted to get it amputated too for convenience and so he could use a prosthetic on that side. I worked with a girl who's hand didn't form properly in the womb, resulting in a normal palm, but tiny "finger nubs" (her words) with no bones inside. They weren't actively harming her usually, but she opted to get them and the top of her palm amputated after an incident at work where we were tying balloons and one of her nubs got stuck in the knot. She decided to get them amputated because it meant accidents like that would be less likely, and she could use a prosthetic more comfortably. All 3 of these are considered "optional" amputations, so would people like us be penalised in your setting? does it make sense that the technology in your setting can tell the difference, or that corporations would care about the how and why? Even stepping away from medical grey areas, if your character opts for a cybernetic arm because the corporations will financially reward her, and she's struggling to put food on the table without that help, is that really optional?

Don't get me wrong, I do think that idea could work but it would take a lot of work to do well, and most works I've seen don't do the work. Even if they did though, it doesn't change the fact that most modern uses of this trope don't mention that bit or actively ignore it. It doesn't matter in most cyberpunk works I've seen if the amputation was optional or out of necessity, they still are more prone to being seen as "less human" and in most of the sci-fi writing communities I've been part of, the authors are genuinely shocked when I ask them to remember "people with cybernetics are real people already, they're not some far-off-distant future fantasy group, they're just called amputees". Like it didn't even cross their minds. These are the people creating the works in this genre. Even if it wasn't the original intention of the genre, it's still an issue in the modern version of it. Edit 2: Elaborated a little more on why I don't think the "only people who choose it" argument works in the edit. Also, please stop telling me that old cyberpunk doesn't have this issue, I literally address that in the post lol.

[caer-oswin]

The Grey's Son