Okay, you had me up till this point. There was definitely ambiguity. That's sort of the whole joke of the Voight-Kampff test (and the movie at-large). Discerning humanity isn't trivial or obvious. You can argue that the movie reads better if Deckard isn't a replicant, but the screenplay is deliberately ambiguous with the intent of putting the viewer in Deckard's shoes.

And not merely to ask if this particular character is a replicant, but to ask whether there's any value in hunting for them or any real means of drawing a distinction at all. What is the point of trying to "detect for humanity" if not to find a population we can ethically treat as less-than-human?

The sequel tries to delve into that question a bit more deeply, but gets high on its own auteur supply along the way. What is the purpose of hunting replicants, really? Is there any real social good in sorting "real" humans from artificial ones? Or is it just a hysterical impulse that will lead to our collective self-destruction?

[–] Gaspar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Fair enough. I think it's safe to say that my reply was a little heated. You are, of course, correct. I will edit my comment.