The Gay Joke In Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon Is Harmless. Or Is It?

The first thing that immediately stood out to me when I initially previewed Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon wasn't the neon, it wasn't the hark back to the ridiculousness of the 80's, it wasn't even the blood dragons themselves. That's because I didn't get to see much of any of that before being hit with a gay, possibly homophobic joke.

If you've played the game, maybe you've come across it. It happens right at the start, during our introduction to the game — Rex 'Power' Colt is talking to Spider. If you'd like to watch it, it's in the video above. Here's the transcript:

Spider: Wakie wakie, motherfucker. Ops says there's a delay in the feed, they need to recalibrate your arse.

Rex: Me? Spider: Well it ain't me 'cause I'm goddamn near perfect. Men want to be me —

Rex: And you want to be with men, yeah, I got it.

[Scene pauses on Spider's face for a second before Spider says something else.]

The context here is clear: in order to take Spider down a peg for his comment about being perfect, Rex implies Spider is gay. The pause right after the comment cements it as a "GOTCHA!" moment.

But was it harmful? Was the harm intentional, even — and if it wasn't intentionally harmful, did that matter? These were the questions I had a difficult time answering.

I wasn't really sure what to think at the time, but I made sure to ask creative director Dean Evans about it.

Kotaku: So one thing I noticed, there were a couple of homophobic jokes in there. What's that about?

[Evans was drinking a beer, which at this point he starts choking on. He puts his drink down.]

Evans: It is the least homophobic game you will ever, ever play. EVER.

Kotaku: OK. Well I just noticed a couple of things —

Evans: Like what? Like what! Give us an example.

Kotaku: Well at the start, the guy was like, I can't remember his name, but he was like, "All men want to be me," and the other guy interjected, "And you want to be with all men."

Evans: How is that homophobic?

Kotaku: You don't think that's homophobic?

Evans: No. What if he's gay?

Kotaku: What if he's gay. Is he gay? He might be?

Evans: Did you read what was on his…uh, can you read Japanese?

Kotaku: Nope.

Evans: There's a little secret for you.

Kotaku: Okay…?

Evans: Honestly, if you knew the people who were working on this game, you'd realise it's the least homophobic game, if you knew our sexual orientations, you'd realise it's the least homophobic game out there.

Later, as if nervous, in between my other questions:

Evans: The writer, Lucian, Lucien Soulban, is one of the biggest, biggest gays in the world.

[I laughed nervously at this information, it seemed to come out of nowhere.]

Evans: He's like a bear, he's amazing…massive, sculpted beard, giant, hairy back, you see him in the weekend, he's got like, ball gags. To get back to…so we can be nice and frank with each other, just so you know, we are the least homophobic core team you're probably gonna meet in the business.

I still didn't know how to feel. The next day, after I wrote about the game, I asked a couple of people what they thought. For the most part, it seemed as if the reactions fell into two camps: no, it's not homophobic, or well, it's kind of harmless, isn't it?

I let it go and decided against printing the part of the interview about the joke. I did that even though I recognised in my gut that yes, it was a homophobic joke — despite being bros, and even if Spider is actually gay, Rex tries to undermine Spider's masculinity, not laud it.

Our own Chris Person has a theory — maybe the headband somehow signifies that Spider and Rex aren't just bros, but possibly lovers?

He calls spider gay as a joke. Spider is wearing that headband. Spider gets killed, and his headband falls off, he swears vengence, and when he wears it later in the game, it's to signify some sort of spiritual change, saying that on some level he is more than a machine, he has "a human heart".

There's nothing to prove [that they were lovers], yes, but that he would specifically bring it up is interesting.

His theory partially comes from Brian Ashcraft's translation of the headband:

The first two kanji characters say ”人の" (人 = hito = person; の = no = 's), and from looking at the third character, I'm guessing it says "愛" ("ai" or "love), but it's blurry and really hard to make out...so maybe it says "人の愛" ("hito no ai" or "A person's love").

Writing "人の愛" on a headband is just so awkward sounding to me in Japanese. Usually people would probable write something like "二人の愛" ( "futari no ai" or "two people's love"), instead of a singular ”人の愛". Writing something like "人の心" or "hito no kokoro" ("A person's heart" or "A person's spirit") seems far more natural, but even then...

Not much to go off of, in terms of contextualizing the scene, I'd say — so I'm not sure I buy the theory. On top of that, thinking about Evan's response regarding the sexuality of the developers and how that means the game couldn't possibly be homophobic — I don't think your identity somehow exempts you from saying something harmful. I've certainly said sexist things in the past despite being a woman, for example. Regardless, I decided against saying anything because it still feels like tricky territory to call someone out on something like this when the creators themselves are gay.

And more importantly than that, for some reason, all I could think was — well, maybe it is harmless? Maybe it's OK, even? Which, looking back now, seems baffling for a number of reasons. The joke isn't funny, for one. It's not a satire of the 80's or its machismo — it reinforces some archaic ideas of what a real man is. Whether or not it's homophobic is clear to me, the only thing that's left is deciding whether or not you find that offensive. Taking a step back from Far Cry 3 here, let's look at the big picture: What does it mean, to consider a homophobic joke "harmless?"

What does it mean, to consider a homophobic joke "harmless?"

We are taught to pick our battles, that's part of it. Something small like this gets looked over for the blatant and aggressively bigoted. A 'small' joke like that looks silly in comparison to, say, the Westboro Baptist Church. With Westboro, the danger seems clear — but it's also a comically extreme position, no? Does something have to go that far for it to pose a sort of danger that's worth calling out? Does it not follow that letting "small" things pass creates a culture that silently tells people it's OK to be bigoted?

Reexamining now, after seeing someone tweet about how it took like 90 seconds before Blood Dragon needlessly threw out a homophobic joke, I can't help but wonder if I thought of it in the right way, initially.

The people this affects — they have a lifetime of 'harmless' jokes jabbing them as they go along. Does that not build up? Maybe they laugh. Maybe they shrug it off. Maybe they make the jokes too. You need to be able to do these things, really — you need to be able to take it on the chin. How else will you cope with a society that seems unable to accept who you are? How do you deal with being constantly told that you can't even be upset about it — just a joke, jeez!

Much of this is like perpetually having a tiny rock in your shoe. It's a annoyance, albeit a small one. Harmless, if you will.

Maybe you feel tired — maybe you think to yourself: god, fuck, here we are again. Talkin' about sensitive issues like sexuality and gender. We are all tired, I assure you. Some people more than others. I'm willing to bet that the people who are the most tired are those who are constantly under attack by malicious and "harmless" things alike, though. Funnily enough they are the ones who have to shrug it off.

I am not gay, but I know how these "harmless" jokes build up over time — I think, for example, having my family constantly joke about when I'm getting married, or about my weight. It is harmless; they don't intend to be hurtful — in the same way that I doubt the people behind Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon were intentionally trying to be harmful or homophobic. That's fine, though it doesn't mean it can't end up being hurtful anyway.

Much of this is like perpetually having a tiny rock in your shoe. It's a annoyance, albeit a small one. Harmless, if you will. Small enough that you could live with it if you really wanted to, maybe even ignore it despite the blisters.

Is the joke harmless? It's a pebble in a shoe.


Comments

    Oh noez. Someone insinuated someone else likes men. Quick! Call the police!

    Seriously?

      yeh im with ya on that! (lol at tags)
      so to sum things up... is this a harmless joke? yes...

      "Someone insinuated someone else likes men."

      It's naive to say that it was more than that, and that Rex was calling Spider gay as an insult. Still though, nobody is pointing fingers at anyone, the ordeal just causes some discussion on whether or not we should still accept these types of jokes anymore.

      Imagine if the joke wasn't about sexuality, but about race? Imagine if it was insinuated that someone was lesser because they were black? It would be a shit storm. Now, do we consider homophobia in the same vein as racism?

      I get the context of the joke, but in the world we're living in now, jokes like this, no matter how harmless they seem, are becoming more and more politically incorrect. I mean, we don't laugh at people for being black and then say "It's okay, I'm not racist, it's just a harmless joke," but was there a time when people did?

      It's just a matter on how we're progressing as a society, and whether or not, due to the big gay right's movement, if these kinds of jokes are still acceptable.

      I mean, it doesn't mean the developers are bad people, because, during this transition stage in our culture regarding homosexuality, you can still be non-homophobic and appeal to comedic tropes surrounding gay insults and people will understand. As Evans said himself, the team were "the least homophobic team ever," and you know, I believe that.

      As I said, it's just a matter of whether or not we should still consider these jokes acceptable or not. It's not about justice or who's a wrongdoer, but just about reassessing our comedic tropes regarding homosexuality. Nobody is taking it too seriously, it just raises a point.

      Last edited 09/05/13 2:23 pm

        And I think perhaps adding to that, should it be considered less unacceptable for a "homophobic" joke to be made by a homosexual? Or would we just put it down to self-depreciating humour?

        here's the thing, at no point was it at all insinuated that because he wanted to sleep with all the men that he was a lesser person, so your whole racism thing is redundant. it's hardly racist to insinuate that someone has a dark skin colour, and definitely not homophobia to insinuate that someone simply wants to sleep with other men.

        and what's the point in taking offense at a joke? what's the point of having jokes if people are going to treat them like they are true statements made by a person. if someone insinuated that gays were lesser people seriously then you can take offense, but when it's a joke what are you getting offended about? is it really offensive to mock an offensive viewpoint? is it offensive to gay people for me to say that people who hate gays are stupid? that's ass backwards man.

        I'll tell you what offends me as a gay person, this fucking article, I've played the game and I've heard the joke, and to me it was a funny joke because I've shared similar jokes with my friends and understand exactly what it's getting at, but this article is disgraceful.

        not only does patty not know anything about what it's like to be a gay man, but she flat out implies that gay men CANNOT be masculine, and that suggesting that someone is gay means you are "undermining" their masculinity (I know gays that are more masculine then lex steels testicles), she actually goes right ahead and treats being gay like being some pitiable sub state of sexuality, saying someone is a homosexual is not the equivalent of calling them weak and the fact that she thinks it does shows exactly how bigoted she herself is.

        dear patty, please stop white knighting a cause you couldn't possibly hope to understand or know anything about, I honestly don't care about your innate need to be morally justified by other people. stop telling me what i should be offended by, it's people like you that perpetuate the rejection of the gay community, if people just learned to get over it and realize that being gay doesn't define a person and doesn't mean they need your approval or acceptance we'd all be better off.

        I am not weak and I most certainly don't need you to defend me from something as tame as humor (especially a game which is designed specifically with the pretense that you shouldn't ever take it seriously).

          Very well put. Not being gay, I don't understand it much myself. But the way I look at it is: if it is acceptable to make straight sex jokes why not gay jokes? And not to sound like a complete ass hat, equal rights bring positives and negatives.

        The question really isn't about whether Its acceptable conduct at all, but rather whether its funny. If I make a joke about slavery in colonial America (not a very funny topic, but I'm sure it can be done) and the joke is genuinely funny, people are going to accept it as a joke regardless of the subject matter. If I throw a reference to slavery in my joke - or even root the entire joke in the subject, solely for the purpose of making it "edgy" or differentiating myself, Then I've done something unacceptable.

        In the case of Blood Dragon this causes some contention as the joke can be viewed either way. It's clearly just intended just to reinforce the brotastic relationship between the two through the use of rather juvenile humor, however (to me at least) it seemed kind of sudden and out of place for a game that doesn't put a lot of emphasis on sex or sexuality (with the obvious exception of doctor Darling) So I could see some of the more sensitive members of our community perking up their ears in response.

        See point 2 below regarding semiotics. It is only you that are creating the negative connotations. The joke is a play on word - you are the person who produces a signified that is equating that a man being liked by men is a negative. Your first sentence is bizarre. The use of and, is confusing. Are you saying it is insulting or not? If you are not then the rest of your diatribe is as useless as the first sentence. If you are saying it is insulting then as I have stated it is you that have created the homophobia. Anywat congratulations on annoying both homosexuals and hetrosexuals equally. See ya white knight!

    Seriously?!
    Stop looking for controversy where there is none.

      ...but...but...but how will gamers desperately wanting to look hip prove how progressive they are?

    You know what else I noticed? They say nigger a lot in Django Unchained.

    I saw the title and I thought "could this be....?"
    "yep, written by Patricia."

      Mountains and molehills come to mind. Although in this case it's Mount-fuckin'-Everest.

      Jeez, it's getting pretty awful isn't it?

      As a gay woman in the games industry, this article made me cringe the entire way down. I live for the day that any whim of people's sexuality detected in any dialogue in any form of media is as overlooked and as non-stipulated as the sexuality of everyone else. Gay people don't want to spit the dummy every time someone insinuates something about sexuality. We want everyone to shut the hell up about it, give us our rights and just let us continue to be the regular, hardworking citizens that we've always been.

      Patricia, please stop trying to help the gays - we have glitter and rainbows, they suffice.

        I'm with you there, Poke-It. While it's better than having rocks thrown at my face, I don't need people picking my battles for me or thinking I have tissue-thin skin.

        Bring on the day when sexuality needn't be part of some "debate".

        All hail poke-it, spokesperson for every single gay, lesbian, trans, fluid, otherkin and younameit on the planet!

        Seriously. Not helping as much as you think you are, and just providing justification for people who DO have awful notions.

        Yes, the article is cringe factor 12.

        No, you do not represent all gays and their views any more than my opinions represent those of all heteros. Stop that please.

      OMG can you imagine knowing her IRL? You'd have to walk on egg shells all day long :S Would be hell.

      I did that too. I read it for a bit, went past the offending manuscript and thought "Thats it? thats what this is all about." I looked at the size of the article, so much writing over this? "wait....This sounds familiar..." and sure enough that name is right at the top".

      I have no qualms with homosexuality, but i can't stand it when queers are pampered like poor defenseless puppies while these yaps go on about MUH EQUALITY.

    Comparing this joke to the things those Westboro guys say and do?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

      subtly implied homophobia in mass media is far more destructive that a minority so blatant and outrageous that they are actually destructive to their own cause.

        Except homophobia is NEVER implied!
        If anything, the joke is more of a play on words. "men want to be me" "and you want to be with men" The Homosexual statement arisen in there is not negative nor positive.

      A ‘small’ joke like that looks silly in comparison to, say, the Westboro Baptist Church. With Westboro, the danger seems clear — but it’s also a comically extreme position, no?
      I believe the question being posed was where does one draw the line against homophobia or things that could be interpreted as homophobia, so no, I don't think it was too much of a stretch to compare the two.

        they draw the line at whether someone is seriously stating their offensive viewpoint as opposed to speaking from an entirely fictitious viewpoint that not only isn't their own but is contrary to their actual beliefs.

        took me about 20 seconds to answer that one, not quite the deep question she was trying for was it?

    Fishin.... Fishin... Fishin....

    Woah looks like we got a bite! Reel reel reel....

    Wow how good is this click-bait!

      Bingo.

      Although trolling nature aside, rubbish like this is one reason why gays will never be seen as real equals. Lack of ability to laugh at oneself and take a joke for one thing.

    @mavx4 Same. I knew it was Patricia Hernandez too before even reading the Author.

    Patricia heres a life lesson for you. Stop looking for controversy where controversy does not exist.

    Far Cry : Blood Dragon is a love letter to the 80s. A time where oiled up muscular men on film waxed lyrical to other men about their hatred of 'fags' while naked in the shower with each other. Or played oiled up volleyball on beaches while giving less than subtle sexual innuendo about 'being their wingmen anytime'. The 80s was one HUGE repressed gayfest. The colours worn were FLURO colours, HAIR METAL was celebrated, MEN wore midriff shirts and cutoff denim shorts to show they were strong. HE MAN wore a bob cut, a fur thong and a metal brace on his chest while oiled up fighting random villains who as well wore fur thongs while oiled up with nary a woman in sight.

    Shall we go on about how less than subtly homo-erotic the 1980s were because I swear, I can wax lyrical about it for HOURS on end. I lived that decade, I loved that decade but I'm well aware of the subtext that decade carries with it.

    BLOOD DRAGON is a love letter to the 1980s Patricia Hernandez. Grow up. Get with the times and celebrate it.

    Last edited 09/05/13 2:26 pm

    It is a satire of 80s hollywood film. 80s hollywood films were homophobic (bar of course Top Gun). I am becoming increasingly Patricia-phobic. Most of your articles are like having a rock in my shoe. Albeit a sensationalist and reactionary rock that offends most peoples intelligence.

      Patricia Hernandez, your go-to contributor for pointless arguments that needn't be made...

      A satire? I think that's a bit of a stretch. It was just a joke about another dude liking men; it's a trope in comedy that has been around for decades (wait, I'm pretty sure Juvenile made some gay jokes - make that centuries).

      Whether you like it or not, it raises an interesting point. Should we still consider these types of jokes acceptable? During this transitional period, where the whole world is reassessing their ethics regarding homosexuality, it's okay to have discussions about these things.

      Patricia might be one of those people who look for controversy anywhere. She may be one of those people who are way too sensitive and look for any means to inflict justice, but at least she is contributing to the discussion.

      Ad hominem isn't a contribution.

      Last edited 09/05/13 2:32 pm

        I do not think that the dialogue is homophobic. It is a play on words with no malicious intent. The game is satire -I never claimed the said dialogue was satirical. You presume that I do not think that it "is ok to have discussions of such things". Of course it's ok to discuss such things however when the discussion uses the said dialogue as a motivating example the the actual discussion is tainted by the associated idiocy - much like this reply. In fact you have not contributed anything to the discussion other than presumptive and condescending statements You even state that the dialogue is a trope - thus is it not ok to use said trope in a satirical narrative? Please go away - your stereotypical pseudo-intellectual rhetoric is offensive to the intelligent.

          Okay, I apologise if you think I was being condescending, that wasn't my aim.

          I never claimed the said dialogue was satirical.

          But you used the fact that the game is satirical to justify that piece of dialog. If you don't think that piece of dialog is satirical, why did you even mention it? I don't understand your logic.

          It is a play on words with no malicious intent.

          I agree whole-heartedly. We're still finding out whats acceptable and whats not acceptable when it comes to homosexuality and gay rights, and "well your gay lol" is a very popular joke that isn't at all without wit, especially in this case, because it was a well constructed play on words. The point of this article is, because of the big gay rights movement and the direction our soceity is headed in regards to homosexuality, where do we draw the line? Patricia raises the point of whether or not it's harmless, given the way our soceities' ethics regarding homosexuality has changed. I mean, I'm not going to disagree with someone saying she's a bit too hung up on justice, but yeah, she does raise an interesting and important discussion.

          It's extremely obvious that there was no malicious intent, but I'll reiterate for the millionth time, that is not the arguement being made.

          You even state that the dialogue is a trope - thus is it not ok to use said trope in a satirical narrative?

          Who said tropes are bad?

          Not to mention, if the dialog isn't satirical, why does it matter if it's a satirical narrative? If the dialog is a legitimate joke, then it doesn't matter if the whole narrative is satirical. If the dialog was playing into the satire of the narrative, then that's understandable, but to say that is to also say that the joke IS intentionally homophobic, which you're also arguing is not? Okay. Sure.

          Look, the idea is whether or not this trope is okay anymore. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not having a go at the developers, because, as I said, in this transitional period, what we can and can't do is extremely unclear, and using a trope that has been around for centuries is perfectly justifiable given the circumstances. The question is, should it continue to be justified given the gay rights movement?

          Why do I have to repeat myself if you're such an intellectual, by the way?

          Please go away - your stereotypical pseudo-intellectual rhetoric is offensive to the intelligent.

          In fact you have not contributed anything to the discussion other than presumptive and condescending statements

          I want you to read over these two statements you made and realise where you have gone wrong here.

          And by the way - ouch. I don't feel such an attack was warranted, but whatever, I get it, you're extremely insecure. I'll be on my way now, as you so requested, my lord and glorious god of intellect.

          Last edited 09/05/13 3:44 pm

            1. The dialogue does not have to be satirical in and of itself to create a larger satirical piece. Thus its use is justified in creating satire. Regardless of whether said dialogue is homophobic or not. I was justifying not the dialogue but any 'homophobic' notions represented in the greater satire.
            2. I am not saying that the dialogue is not homophobic merely because of malice or intent. I understand your stance. You have merely assumed that I disagree. It is merely a play on words. There is no malice in terms of the character delivering it. In fact the only homophobic context is created by the semiotic signification brought to the table by Patricia.
            3. You say that "the question is whether or not this trope is ok anymore". In the context of a satire - yes. that is what I am saying if you consider the dialogue a trope and homophobic. I do not.
            4. In regards to your repetition I would prescribe anti-assumption pills as I only implied I was intelligent not an intellectual. :)
            5. I have read both the quotations at the end and have tried to realise where I went wrong. yes the first statement is condescending. Your point? I am not being hypocritical as I have contributed more than just presumptive and condescending statements. Which leads me to the hypocrisy of your final paragraph after having a go at me for saying something condescending. This hypocrisy is small however when compared to juxtaposing that final paragraph with the final paragraph of your previous comment being -Ad Hominem.

            Further I would ask you to look at the commentary around (including yours) Patricia has done nothing more than piss people off. You obviously have an agenda of forcing people to have a discussion about this topic based on your own misguided assumptions. You are both doing more harm than good. If you wish to end with sarcasm I will too. You and Patricia have really made a difference and don't look like belligerent fools. Kudos dear Serf!

            Plays on words are kinda hard to resist, I'll admit. I can't count the number of times I've had to bite down real hard on a really prime opportunity for a 'your mum' joke.

            I mean. I barely know them. And given the average age of folks I interact with, the odds are pretty good I'm not fucking their mothers. But my inner twelve year old can't help jumping up and down and nagging, "Say it, SAY IT! It'll be SUCH A BURN!"

            By the same token... know your audience. It's one thing to joke to a fellow geek in a relaxed atmosphere that I have biblical knowledge of his or her mother. It's another entirely to a client, a customer, a random stranger overheard on the bus, or... my siblings. (ESPECIALLY the latter.)

            I get the feel this was meant to be the more intimate setting where this stuff is understood to be ribbing for ribbing's sake.

      Here is the key word: "Satire". The author here is so confused trying to have big thoughts about whether the joke itself is homophobic , she is missing the damn point. The joke IS homophobic, but it is presented in the satirical context of a time when such jokes were more common in media. It was acceptable in the 80s, but when presented in the context of current times, it means something different. That difference is where satire and irony hang out together, laughing at people who take things literally. Satire is about presenting a view of a society or time (or whatever) in a form of mock approval, but it doesn't actually approve - it is subversively ridiculing what it (on the surface) appears to support.

      It is a lot like how the racism in BioShock: Infinite is not actually about promoting racism. They don't really think the Irish are all that bad, but people ONCE DID. Geddit?

    Really... yet another Patricia story trying to incite something where there is nothing

    Are you guys serious? This is a joke right? A whole article for just a few lines of dialog at the beginning of a game. This is just silly, they are just words, if people choose to let these words get to them than its their own problem. If someone is going to get offended over a "gay" joke then they probably shouldn't be looking to play r18+ games if they are so sensitive to these issues.

    The fact that so much time has been put int this article shows that maybe people need to stop focusing on what upsets them, and maybe start focusing on what makes them happy, and leaving those who have no problem with "words" alone instead of once again something is ruined or changed just because of some (for lack of a better word) WIMP'S out there.

    Grow up.

    Patricia, you are a pebble in my shoe.

    Iggy Pop once said "I'm not ashamed to dress like a woman, because it's not shameful to be a woman."
    Johnny Galecki recently explained he doesn't defend himself against rumours that he's gay because "why defend yourself against something that's not offensive?".

    Maybe, just maybe, some off the cuff turn of phrase about some guy wanting to be with men, isn't actually a big fucking deal.

    Yesterday was an article painting a picture of how a clinically depressed person can be entertained by Animal Crossing, but this article really takes the cake. I used to not mind Kotaku pushing some boundaries and putting the gaming industry under the microscope but it’s getting a little ridiculous in how self-serious it is all getting.

    Holy hell.....i dont even.

    SO WHAT if it was a gay joke. Go to a bar or any gathering of adults friends and you will hear much worse things.
    Its an MA rated game, it warns you of language and other such things, so for you to complain about something you where warned about is rediculous.

    Would it have been as bad if they where both gay and insinuated that the other enjoyed the company of women sexually?
    Im so goddamn sick and tired of peoples over reactions to the SMALLEST things in games. It was a dumb joke, the game is full of em.

    If it was said with malice or bad intentions, sure you might have a case, but in the context of the scene is was just 2 overly manly guys making fun of each other.

    Oh, and the fact that you made a big deal about not posting the original article, but decided to post another article that basically contained all of the original articles points is dumb beyond belief.

    Get over it.

      Would patricia have written this article if they were both gay and made a joke about breeders? I think not...

        Actually, she probably would have, and it would have been just as pertinent. She's pretty adept at filling space these days it would seem. I don't use Selley's gap filler around the house any more. If I see a gap that needs filling, I just fill the space with a couple of her articles.

        Last edited 09/05/13 2:35 pm

          LOL god you made me laugh so bloody hard there! LOL!!!!

    ENOUGH! Gay men have a hard enough time as it is without outsiders stiring the pot looking for an excuse to strap on their White Knight armour... A gay joke is FINE, i repeat, fine when used for the purposes of comedy and when delivered without malice. Now please Patricia, drop it.

      I wish she would read this comment. Not that it'd deter her one bit.

      Last edited 09/05/13 2:49 pm

      Exactly. Articles like this are kind of like the boy who cried wolf. People get up in arms about stupid, insignificant bullshit like this to the extent that when a REAL issue arises, people are just over it... "oh, it's another anti-gay controversy *yawn*".

      I've seen the white-knighting go to ironically homophobic levels in itself, in an albeit passive way.

      I remember in a MMO, one guy in a chat channel said something vaguely homophobic. Yeah, whatever, it's a MMO, you expect that. Report and move on, if you give a shit.
      But this one guy, mister White Knight, takes it upon himself to talk down to this other guy from a position of self-assumed intellectual and moral superiority, and they get into it over the zone chat, back and forth.

      And the whole time, mister White Knight is trying to insinuate that his target is actually closeted himself and just in denial. Which is about the point that I realized mister White Knight was using accusations of homosexuality as an insult, intended to offend. As if being mistaken for gay was something you should be offended by.

      And that's when I realized I actually understand where Patricia is coming from on this topic. (Yeah, imagine my surprise.) It's not active homophobia. It's passive. So yeah, it's better, I guess... It's like a dried up white dog turd in your cereal instead of a fresh, warm, stinky one. You're still putting shit in someone's breakfast.

      It might be tame, but there's just no reason to go there. It's on the same level as idiot kids saying, "That's so gay," to describe something that they think is shitty or annoying. (One of the few times I disagree with Louis C.K.!)

      Last edited 09/05/13 4:54 pm

    So this is homophobic because someone insinuated that someone else was homosexual? Obviously this was just a joke between two guys. I mean doesn't this happen a lot between straight male friends? Yes, the game could of not included the joke but I think it could of been a lot worse, like one of them dropping the word 'faggot' like you usually do hear in real life between male friends. On the grand scale of intolerance towards homosexuals in the world, this is pretty low on the radar if you ask me.

    Okay lets fix it.

    Rex: Me? Spider: Well it ain’t me ’cause I’m goddamn near perfect. both sexes equally want to be me.

    Rex: And you want to be with one of the sexes but you will not distinguish which because that is your own business, yeah, I got it.

    It's because of people like Patricia Hernandez that we have companies now declaring their stance on Nazism when releasing a game with fictional Nazi content. These people are not contributing positively to humanity...

    From a gay man's perspective (mine) it really doesn't bother me at all and I'm sure it wouldn't bother any of my friends. It's not even homophobic it seems like you're making something out of nothing.

    God forbid anybody anywhere should ever say anything politically incorrect, whether in jest or not. Let us know when you're hosting your next book burning, Patricia - I'd love to come.

    Last edited 09/05/13 2:49 pm

    While I don't necessarily think it's our place as heterosexuals to decide whether or not a gay joke is offensive or not (and this works BOTH WAYS, Patricia), I have to agree with everyone here that this is stupid, and it's a pretty tame joke. What @dogcat said, basically.

    At the very least, it's a gay joke between, for and to adults. It's not like children would be influenced by the joke, since they sure as hell shouldn't be playing.
    And straight dudebros make jokes like this all the time, who cares.

      Yeah. I don't know that it was worth a fifteen-hundred word essay, but simply saying, "Hey. You're calling someone gay like it should offend them. Can we not do that anymore?" seems fair.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now