Someasy @ Someasy @lemmy.world

Posts

16

Comments

61

Joined

2 yr. ago

Thank you! Yes, I'm loving the game :) here's hoping they remake the second one now

Apparently quite a few people know but I felt like everyone was missing something based on these dialogues/scenes. But what you said made more sense. https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/1j4a2aq/as_of_ddba_s1e2_heres_everyone_who_knows_matt/

Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?

In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.

In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?

Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?

In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.

In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?

Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?

In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.

In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?

Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?

In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.

In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?

Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?

In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.

In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?

🤔

Reminds me of how people saw Okja as a simple adventure movie and tried really hard to ignore the message it was conveying about animal rights (the creators even went vegan for the movie but we're not ready for that convo...)

That's weird, in She Hulk series, Wong is living in a kind of monastery on a mountain and watching The Sopranos there and dancing to the theme song (Woke Up This Morning) supposedly believed by many to be sung by Leonard Cohen. It does kind of sound like his voice.

Well I'm in full speculation mode. Apparently GOG is still saying they'll ship the physical game in Q2, and the digital release is still officially slated for Q1. But Limited Run Games also said the physical copy would ship in December of last year before it got delayed, so it doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm just wondering if it's likely it could get delayed again. There was also an interview with the creators of the game where they didn't really say anything about when it was releasing except explained the reasons for the delay.

If they're on track to release digitally in Q1, the last opportunity for that to happen is now this month (March). Is it really feasible that it could drop this month considering they haven't announced a specific release date yet (aside from the Q1 window they gave near the end of last year)? Surely they would first make a more accurate release date announcement, and then want there to be some time (some amount of notice given in advance) before it actually releases? Is less than 1 month even enough time between announcement & release for a game like this? If so what's the least time we can expect they would realistically leave it before announcing, 1 week before release? Seems like if it's going to meet the predicted window (which after they already delayed it past the previous one they may be disincentivised from missing again, also considering some reviewers have already played the game) wouldn't the date have to be announced any day now as per usual game release protocol?

Thank you ... I hate Reddit

Q1 2025*

I heard you can get a good deal on plots of land on the Moon and Mars at the moment.

That's never happened to me yet. But I would hope we just have to start the level again from the beginning (without checkpoints) and we lose the progress we made on it for that attempt, á la Crash Bandicoot. I doubt they would make you start the whole game again like the original Kao the Kangaroo (if you don't manually save), that would be brutal.

In your examples, I would definitely think we shouldn't use differential/non-equivalent language between different groups of people/members of society, including races or genders. So that includes not saying "white man" and "man who's a black" -> I would think this should probably be "white man" and "black man" or "man who's white" and "man who's black". I think being consistent with our language used to refer to people is important to not promote or uphold discrimination. There could be other problems even if it's consistent, I'm not denying that, but I think lack of consistency of treatment (linguistic or otherwise) is a key issue. I believe in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity to a degree, that language shapes/influences how we view the world & informs a lot of actions & behaviors in society. So linguistic discrimination is a real thing that can lead to or perpetuate more overt (physical/social) forms of discrimination. For the same reason, it should be consistent between genders (and as a side note, I don't view male and female to be strictly biological terms to refer to biological sex, but rather that they can be used for gender identity too, as in MtF / FtM [male to female or female to male], which other sociology institutions seem to agree with as well, in case you thought I was being a "sex absolutist" or transphobic).

The case of using "male and female" for rats in an experiment is interesting because to me it represents a double standard where we are okay with using those more kind of basic fundamental terms for non-human animals, even if we're not okay with using them for humans (and it's not like we have terms like men and women for other animals, so it's somewhat understandable in working within the language). But it also shows that if we only reserve those terms for other animals, it can uphold harmful differential treatment of them (such as conducting experiments/testing on them that they can't consent to–and wouldn't since they're typically cruel in ways we would never do to humans–which could be seen as exploitation/taking advantage of sentient beings), as tied to a belief that humans are superior and are not animals, which is used to rationalize these actions & arguably discrimination (speciesism) of another kind. That's partly why I question if it's really valid for us to be opposed to using terms like male and female for humans, or if it reveals something deeper about how we think of ourselves in relation to other animals- as well as just curiosity about if there is really a problem there, and what/why that might be.

I was talking about the people complaining about female characters in media lol. Those people are usually males who are often not (chronologically) mature, making it strange to call them men. I guess some of the characters might not be men either. But yeah we could say male characters rather than e.g. "7 characters: 5 males, 2 females" etc. But it could get a little clunky. Also I'm just not sure what the problem with it is, since saying "males and females" has always been acceptable to me and a basic component of language until patterns of differential linguistic treatment were observed between genders: "men and females" etc, which I understand could be offensive on a gender basis and agree can promote sexist attitudes. I already thought it should either be "women and men" or "females and males", using the equivalent terms in the same context consistently (though somewhat interchangeably), but for there to be an inherent issue with using "males" and "females" even when we apply them equally seems like a separate objection that was new and unexpected for me. I'm curious to find out why that is that some people don't like those terms in general, and I think maybe we should question it, because I have a feeling it could be tied to feelings of human entitlement and the problematic (imo) belief that humans aren't animals, as used to justify speciesism. But I could be wrong.

Well humans are animals, maybe we should question why it makes some of us feel uncomfortable to be referred to in the same way we would refer to other animals. It could be ingrained biases of human supremacy/anthropocentrism/speciesism that we use to justify differential treatment of nonhumans that we wouldn't want done to ourselves 🤔 just a thought

Yeah I'm aware of the problems with saying "men and females" but I thought the issue was more about a double standard of using different terms for different genders... If we say "males and females" and use the equivalent terms for both, is there a problem with this? Because it's not treating them differently so I don't really understand

Why when a lot of those males aren't men, they're boys.