A Response To My Critics About The ‘Homophobic’ Language In Battlefield 3

A Response To My Critics About The ‘Homophobic’ Language In Battlefield 3

On Monday, I wrote about homophobic language in Battlefield 3. I thought I had sufficiently unpacked the words I quoted from the game’s multiplayer dialogue in order to make my point clear.

Perhaps not.

Unpacking bias in language is about context and association. It’s basically a semiotic exercise, pulling sentences apart and figuring out what the words mean underneath the words themselves. It’s slow and tedious and often frustrating, and I had thought not to belabor the point any more than necessary.

I erred in the wrong direction, because people seem to think the lines “I’m getting fucked up the arse over here!” and “Fuck, I’m getting my shit pushed in here!” in Battlefield 3’s multiplayer are expressing fear of rape instead of homophobia. Before I explain why that’s not the case, some background is in order.

I am white, male and straight. I am the definition of cultural privilege in the United States. Social justice activists like to argue that bias affects everyone, but I maintain a sneaking suspicion that’s more theory than reality. I could, at any moment, decide to pay absolutely no attention to the racism, sexism, or homophobia embedded in the culture and language around me, and my life would not change one whit. It takes effort for me to notice prejudice because I have to look for it. I suspect my efforts at being sensitive to prejudice are why I finally realised how this dialogue in Battlefield 3 was homophobic.

If you would like to argue that the soldiers in Battlefield 3‘s multiplayer are conveying fear of being raped in general, which is not homophobic, versus fear of being raped by men, which is decidedly homophobic, you are arguing that they are expressing fear of being raped by someone other than a man. In other words, you are arguing that they may be expressing fear of being raped by a woman in this specific context.

Technically, those lines could be referring to men and women. Anal sex is not strictly a gay activity. That is absolutely correct. However, in American culture, anal sex is linked to or often representative of gay sex. Saying that anal sex is a homophobic reference in this specific instance and context is not the same thing as saying that all anal sex is gay sex.

Someone asked me why I didn’t address the “cocksucker” lines when calling out Battlefield 3‘s homophobic multiplayer dialogue. “Somebody kill these cocksuckers!” or words to that effect is another one of the homophobic lines one might hear during a match. That’s a very clear example of homophobia because cocksucker, when used as an insult by one man against another man, is a gender-specific insult that unpacks into “Sucking cocks is bad.”

Maybe I should have brought that line up instead of declining to do so out of fear of beating the reader over the head with my point. To argue that the lines “I’m getting fucked up the arse over here!” and “Fuck, I’m getting my shit pushed in here!” have nothing to do with homophobia when they are happening in the same space if not simultaneously with lines about wanting to “kill cocksuckers” is absurd. The reason why you cannot make the argument that these soldiers are only complaining about not wanting to be raped and remove homophobia from the equation is because in order to do so, you have to remove these lines of dialogue from the entire context in which they are set.

Language doesn’t work like that. Context matters.

If you want to understand what these lines of dialogue mean, you cannot isolate them from the fact that they are being issued by members of an organisation which is institutionally homophobic, hence why Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a relevant context for analysis. Part of homophobia is fear on the part of straight men that gay men will not be able to control their sex urges and express sexual interest in them. This is why homophobic straight men get uncomfortable with the idea of sharing intimate space like showers, locker rooms — or military units — with “queers.” You also can’t refuse to hold these lines of Battlefield 3 multiplayer dialogue up to that contextual lens, either, if you want to argue that you fully understand what they mean.

There is one other frequent response to Monday’s article that I’d like to address, namely that I am being over-sensitive. Having identified to you as being solidly outside the boundaries of where the injury from this sort of prejudice falls I hope I’ve blunted that idea in large part already. But then there’s my love of the word cocksucker. It can leap out of my mouth during a match of Battlefield 3 when someone snipes me from 100 yards away, or when I’m about to drop an M320 grenade into a crowd of enemy players and someone else runs me over with a tank. “That fucking cocksucker!” I might yell out, much to the amusement of the group of guys I play first person shooters with on Xbox Live.

One night my friend Scott joined the Party Chat of my virtual band of brothers. I held off on the use of my favourite curse word because Scott is gay. I chose to be sensitive and not use a word that might have made him feel uncomfortable. I cringed every time someone in my Party said “That gun is so gay” when they were killed by a weapon which they felt was unbalanced, or “Someone kill this fag that just shot me.” I have to recognise that I was just as responsible for my friends’ language that night as they were, because it means fuck-all not to use the word cocksucker when Scott was around if I am going to use it when he isn’t.

This isn’t about being over-sensitive, but just sensitive. In the process of calling out the homophobic language in Battlefield 3‘s multiplayer I was calling myself out, as well, for my love of the word cocksucker and how profligate I can be with its use. Even if I’m only doing so within a closed Xbox Live Party chat, the simple humanity of not using that word shouldn’t go away just because no one who might be offended is around to hear it. Whenever we use or turn a blind eye to homophobic language we encourage its use. It’s difficult now for me to chide my friends when they call someone a fag in Battlefield 3, even if that person will never hear them say it, because my love of the word cocksucker has helped create an environment where the use of that language is sanctioned. By not discussing the homophobic language in Battlefield 3‘s multiplayer, we help create an environment where said language is sanctioned, as well.

Even if you remain unconvinced for whatever reason, and don’t consider these lines homophobic, consider that since I published that article on Monday I’ve heard from plenty of gay men who do, and they are thrilled that someone with all the privilege in the world, who has no reason to pay attention to any of this, did. They’re thrilled because if a gay man were to have brought this revelation forward, people could and would have dismissed it out of hand. Instead, because it was me, a conversation got started. And even if you’re not convinced, at least you’re thinking about it.

Then consider that Battlefield 3 fans who are gay are forced to listen to language which some of them consider homophobic and which is entirely unnecessary to support the design of the game. The way I stop myself from using the word cocksucker even though I adore it so much is by reminding myself what it means in the context I use it, and what the consequences are of doing so. I wonder how Scott would feel if he were there to hear me say it. Then it’s easier to put the word down. I can use other words. So could DICE in Battlefield 3’s multiplayer. In fact, they did.

There is plenty of multiplayer dialogue triggered by the suppression mechanic which could not possibly have anything to do with homophobia and which is just as effective at letting us know our squad mates are receiving suppressive fire and need our help. Sure, the homophobic dialogue might be realistic, but there are plenty of things about war which are equally realistic which we would never want to depict in a military first person shooter. I’m suggesting the homophobia of soldiers is one of them.

Ours is not to decide whether someone shouldn’t be offended by something but to acknowledge that they are, and then decide whether or not we want to exercise a little compassion.

Dennis Scimeca is a freelance journalist from Boston, MA. His weekly video game opinion column, First Person, runs Thursdays on The Escapist. You can reach him through his blog, Punching Snakes, or follow his random excitations on Twitter: @DennisScimeca.

Comments

  • Superb response that will go unheard by many that need to hear it. I enjoyed the first article, having a keen interest in semiotic studies.

    Good stuff.

    • Agreed. Unfortunately, this article is doomed to go the way of the first, drowned under a sea of nay-sayers who didn’t bother to read more than the headline before rushing to comment.

      • I read it all, I made my criticism (I was in the “Oversensitive!” group), and his fantastic response made me think twice about my comment. Very few columnists and writers bother to respond to their feedback – respect to Mr. Scimeca for doing so. I might just pay more attention to his Escapist column now.

      • It lasted ten minutes. I really wish they taught the idea of underlying message in schools, it would help with everything. The worst part is there are people so used to it that they just don’t care enough to consider any other view point.

        And to help the nay-sayers out, because they clearly need it: Yes, yes I do fear ignorance and stupidity – it got the world to where it is today.

      • Sorry accidently reported your comment when I meant to reply.

        I was going to say that I have plenty of mates that have served in the armed forces and they all agree that homophobic rants are prevelant.

        That’s not to say it should be accepted, but I think the developers were merely creating “authenticity” in the language they used.

        I don’t agree with the language, but I think any concerns should be levelled at the military not a game developer.

  • Maybe this guy should have actually ask some gay men how they feel about those terms in the context of war and battle, I hear there is a whole website called GayGamer that does a great job of not blowing little things like this out of proportion.

    • I’m gay, and after a solid 30 hours of BF3, I’ve never thought twice about any of the lines. I didn’t anything more of it than they’re just gritty sounding bits of dialogue that actual American soldiers might say.

      That said, I guess I can see why people might find it offensive… but IMO they’re being overly sensitive.

      • How we respond to words is based on meaning

        ‘Gay’ and ‘Fag’ have both taken on new derogatory meanings, and their original meanings no longer used commonly.

        However you will find these meanings have probably evolved beyond being homophobic to new meanings, with no homophobia intended. When I call something ‘Gay’ it usually means it ‘sucks’ (another homophobic slur if you really want it to be), if I call someone ‘Fag’ or ‘Retard’ it usually means they are an ‘idiot’

        A simple linguistics lesson should help most people get over their preciousness about how words are used.

      • I’m gay and I’ve played more than 60 hours of battlefield 3 and I can tell you right now buddy that hearing Lets go kill those cocksuckers tends to start wearing on your after awhile. Thank you for bringing this issue up and its not about being fucking oversensitive, someone said something earlier about how theyre just throwaway comments that don’t really mean anything and I can tell you right now that Directed homophobia can hurt just as much as the throwaway careless comment that didn’t really mean anything from the person who said it. But considering we have now had 2 articles on Privilge and 2 on battlefield 3’s multiplayer remarks, people still aren’t getting what the problem is, then how are you going to get through to them.

        • Not even I quite get the problem. I’m not saying there is no problem, I’m just saying I don’t really get it. It’s an accurate depiction of how US soldiers speak. It’s nothing personal and I certainly don’t think language like that has an negative impact on the rest of the world’s view of gays. If anything, I’d think that articles like this do more harm than good. In my opinion, it makes us out not only to be different, but preachy.

        • Dude that just like saying some time in the future it is perfectly ok to call someone N*GGER because we don’t use that to mean black person any more we just mean it as bad. Seriously dude totally warped logic. Seriously think about it. That’s not what you MEAN the word to say but that’s what the word actually MEANS. The “intent” in your head is not referring to gay people but the word does. Thats the complexities of language.

          • +1, I wonder what the outrage would be if the soldier had said Lets kill those sons of N*ggers! Oversensitive my arse, I’m just saying it might be authentic to the US militarys current attitude but its just bullshit and this does not make it acceptable and it shouldn’t be in the game. Period.

      • i’m 24, gay, australian. just want to say i think this is really amusing , people have actually analysed the word cocksucker.

  • Barthes – the death of the author. Lacan then Derrida – Any semiotic analysis of the words results in a multiplicity of signified meanings. This signified meaning is in turn subject to a multiplicity and a deferral of meaning. Thus – semiotically – there is no implicit meaning thus another rant from the US

    • It can be seen as homophobic in the context in which it is used. When an institution has a long and well-known history of homophobia, the use of phrases relating to being “stuffed up the bum” cannot be so innocently dismissed.

      Not everyone will agree! People can believe whatever they want! But I think the writer makes an interesting point — when you look at the context in which that kind of language is used, it would not be too outlandish to find it homophobic.

      • I’d agree that it’s not outlandish that you could find such terms derogatory toward homosexuals, what frustrates me is the idea that because some people might be offended by something that some people might mean when they make an utterance, that utterance should avoided entirely. Stifling language is never a good thing (see 1984) and it doesn’t do anything to actually prevent or resolve a negative attitude toward homosexuality, if anything it merely represses it, which is something many homosexuals are well aware is not a healthy thing.

        • And before anyone jumps on me, that doesn’t mean I think homosexuality fear/hate should be allowed free reign in society, merely that putting bans on certain words is the wrong way to go about it. Tackle the root of the problem, (which granted being upbringing/nurture is highly difficult, but nonetheless important).

      • Honest question (and sort of following on from Sam):

        Given that the game is a (supposedly) realistic portrayal of a possible near-future, and there has been an attempt to “humanise” the game by making the characters act the way a regular soldier right now might, does this context then allow use of certain terms that might be objectionable because it’s “real”?

        Or should effort be taken (as is kinda touched on by the author) to scrub this sort of thing, even if it does reflect the current reality of comments in a real situation?

  • The bit I dont get about the responses to the first article is that his work was completely subjective, is a writer now not allowed to submit his own viewpoint or interpretation of something? This is what journalistic vision used to be before it was watered down into retyping press releases.

    Regardless of wether I agree or not with the subject matter, I can be open to someone elses opinion, especially when it was presented in a cogent and non-offensive way as your first article was, give the guy a break.

    Both are good articles mate, well done.

  • Seriously, he’s given an opportunity to publish on one of the most visited blogs in the world and this is what he comes up with? For shame. For all the real injustices in the world it’s pathetic, narcissistic and narrow minded to write about something so trivial.

    • OK, aside from your strawman argument, what would you like to read? Since you so vehemently disagree, why don’t you pen 500 words and show us why the argument is wrong.

      Not why the author is wrong, but why the ARGUMENT is wrong. If it really is as trivial as you say, you shouldn’t have a hard time coming up with such an argument.

      There might be merit in what you say, but your aggressive-yet-apathetic stance leads me to think otherwise.

      • The number of words and quality of ideas have nothing to do with each other what so ever. Just look at the opinion piece…

      • I hate the “strawman argument” defense. It’s so overused, and mostly incorrect in its usage too, from what I’ve observed.

  • I’m gay. Perhaps I’m not sensitive, but generally comments are like water off a duck’s back. They aren’t specifically aimed at me because I’m not gay when I play the game. I’m just the same as anyone else.

    Now if I identified myself as gay and someone called me a fag then that would be different, it still wouldn’t bother me, but I could see why it would cause offence to others in the same position.

    The cocksucker thing is a real stretch. If I called a male or a female an arselicker chances are they would be insulted. This is despite the fact that a percentage would in fact practise the act. It’s offensive because people tell us it’s offensive, not because of the act itself. I mean if someone calls me a ‘son of a bitch’ it doesn’t even twig that it’s my mother who is the one really being insulted.

    The main thing that annoys me is how unimaginative people are with their insults and language. People calling something ‘gay’ annoys me not because I’m gay, but because it’s overdone. It’s the same with faggot in video games, if faggot is the best you can manage as an insult then you should be pitied, not the feature of articles.

  • The irony of these articles never ceases to make me chuckle. I’m 100% in the party that offense should conveyed by intent not paranoid interpretation. When/if I use the term ‘cocksucker’, I don’t relate it in anyway to homosexuality in my mind, it is interchangeable with ‘asshole’ ‘bastard’ ‘prick’ etc,and usually it’s a casual admission that I just got beaten in some way, rather than a verbal insult meant to inflict psychological harm.

    But no you say, the meaning of the word determines its implications, cocksucker, because it literally means to suck a cock, it doesn’t matter what your intent is, it must be derogatory to homosexuality! And yet here’s the word ‘homophobia,’ it doesn’t actually mean a fear of homosexuals, how could it? It translates to a ‘fear of one,’ in the general sense, one anything, anything coming in ones, the number one maybe, but certainly nothing specific to one sexuality, and yet most readers understand your intent is to imply a fear of homosexuality, because it has become a commonly used word for such, regardless of its literal meaning. This is because intent matters, context matters, language is dynamic not static, and culture is not global.

    I’m not going to claim that everybody who uses ‘fag’ or ‘cocksucker’ must be comfortable with homosexuality, because of course that’s not true, but the contention that the way we react to words is determined purely by their literal meaning is clearly false, as evidenced by this article’s own use of the word ‘homophobia.’ Indeed that contention that while that may be true among familiar company, but with the anonymity of the internet we should be more careful and assume words imply their literal meanings is also false for the same reason. Again, language is dynamic, I’d think it likely that a good subsection of (especially younger) gamers don’t associate the word ‘fag’ with homosexuality at all, but instead see it as akin to ‘asshole,’ which of course you immediately know means ‘mean person,’ in this context, not ‘the entry to the anal canal,’ despite that being it’s literal meaning. In a similar way that people my own age likely do at least have some association of ‘faggot’ with homosexual, and little with ‘a bundle of sticks,’ despite that being it’s literal meaning.

    tl;dr version: Political Correctness is satanic.

    • “But no you say, the meaning of the word determines its implications, cocksucker, because it literally means to suck a cock,”

      No Sam, read it again. It’s the context, the environment that the word is used that determines its intent and implications. The context you are using those words in helps determine the consequences of said words, and in turn help shape whether using them is appropriate or not.

      When Al Swearengen calls Jonie or Trixie a cocksucker, he means that exact thing – they are cocksuckers and he is demeaning them for being such. However, when he calls E.B. Farnum the same name, he is sometimes meaning it literally, and other times merely as a dismissive word, as you say, no different to bastard or arsehole. The context dictates which is which, and furthermore how offensive it is.

      That’s what makes it so intriguing as a mental exercise. Everyeon is familiar with home wonderful the word ‘fuck’ is. The intonation it is used with, the inflection in your voice (difference between hitting your hand with a hammer, dropping a catch in cricket and yelling at a pedestrian) all determine it’s meaning at the time, and similarly, its likely offensiveness to its target.

      A high pitched ‘fark-off’ in response to hearing a tall-tale is not likely to be offensive to anyone listening, but draw a wry grin from the author of said story instead. However, a low pitch, growled ‘fuck. off.’ to someone on your front lawn is aimed at being both offensive to anyone listening, particularly the person it is aimed at. But it is the same two words.

      The same principle applies with cocksucker and the other narrative expletive-laden sentences in BF3.

      • Okay, it was probably poorly worded, what I should have been pointing out was that despite the author’s appealing to context over literal meaning he… well doesn’t, or at least tries to have it both ways.

        “That’s a very clear example of homophobia because cocksucker, when used as an insult by one man against another man, is a gender-specific insult that unpacks into “Sucking cocks is bad.””

        This line right here, I disagree that when used by a man to insult a man it is a gender specific insult that unpacks into ‘sucking cocks is bad.’ I think in that context it unpacks into ‘asshole.’ (asshole as in ‘you’re a meanie.’)
        I say I think, in order to generalise, but in my specific experience this is always what cocksucker has meant when used by myself or anyone I know, the one time I’ve seen someone called out on this they were genuinely surprised to realise that you could take the term ‘cocksucker’ to mean homosexual, despite it’s obvious literal meaning.

        • On another note I realised that I’m using the wrong asshole, and literal meaning should be…. donkey’s… hole… huh. Irrelevant other than poor spelling, but whoops all the same >_>

        • Yeah that’s fair enough too – that line is certainly a weak one in the article. The word ‘cocksucker’ can be a throwaway line (as used in aforementioned DeadWood), or a quite nasty insult. As you rightly point out, it does not necessarily unpack into a gender specific homophobic insult, though it can, which perhaps was the authors too-hastily-made point.

          And to your original tl:dr – I agree. OTT PC drives me mad, butit does make for interesting fodder to examine it’s driving forces.

  • This article should have been re-written to show its most compelling arguments first. The whole bit about ‘being homophobic about being raped in the arse” is nothing but bias and conjecture, with no understanding or TOLERANCE as the writer is seeking of the feelings and preferences of the individuals saying it; regardless of their sexual orientation.

  • I always found that “I’m getting effed in the A here” in that context to be more an allusion to rape than homosexuals. But that’s just my read.

  • Half the time I’m so caught up in things that I don’t even realise that I’ve let a few nasty words slip out and I also find that a lot of the time I’m heavily influenced by others in the game as to what is acceptable behaviour or not… I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that it can be hard to modify behaviour like this, especially when it’s become such a big part of the FPS culture.

  • I don’t particularly like the terminology, but I tend to think that in a game like battlefield 3, where they (claim to) trying to capture the experience (not simulate) of warfare, they unfortunately really need to use the words of that domain, even the offensive ones.

    I felt the same way about the whole Batman “bitch” thing though, and obviously some people had a fundamentally different view on that from my privileged position of being a super-hot straight white guy.

  • Got your point here.

    And I agree that calling someone a cocksucker in a negative light implies that he is gay and in turn implies that being gay is negative.

    But I think “im getting shit pushed in” or “im being f’ed up the arse” taken offensively is wrong. The thing is, to any straight person, being screwed analy IS bad. It has nothing to do with the gay community.

    Imagine a gay person saying “shit, our dicks are in deep vagina now!” while being pinned down in a crossfire (i’m assuming vaginas are scary things to gay men, based on what my gay friends say).

    The difference I reckon is calling out yourself or calling out someone else. calling someone else cocksucker, thats homophobic, calling myself being fked up, not so much.

    • “But I think “im getting shit pushed in” or “im being f’ed up the arse” taken offensively is wrong. The thing is, to any straight person, being screwed analy IS bad.”

      Who are to say it is ‘bad’ with such a blanket statement? You speak for every straight person (presumably, this includes the fairer sex too)?

      • umm you’re being too technical. you should know i’m talking in a general sense. and if you really like, I’ll amend “straight person” to “straight men” too be really really clear.

  • THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

    “If you would like to argue that the soldiers in Battlefield 3‘s multiplayer are conveying fear of being raped in general, which is not homophobic, versus fear of being raped by men, which is decidedly homophobic, you are arguing that they are expressing fear of being raped by someone other than a man. In other words, you are arguing that they may be expressing fear of being raped by a woman in this specific context…”

    I’m sorry, but why is fear of rape by a man considered “decidedly” homophobic? I if was about to be raped by a man, my fear is not that what about to happen is going to be homosexual, my fear is that I’m about to be RAPED. Period.

    Also, lets be real here and say the “shit pushed in” line is definitely referring to getting raped by a man. The thought of a woman penetrating a male asshole with an object (or her hand) is not what comes to mind when one hears that line.

    Regardless, rape is rape. Whether it’s a man, a woman or a gorilla. The fear is not whether the act will be homosexual or not, the fear is in being violated.

    If someone is saying “I’m getting my shit pushed in over here” whilst bullets are whizzing by and the end seems near, they are not making an analogy about how their situation is making them feel like they are engaging in homosexual intercourse. They are stating that they are being violated into submission, much like someone being raped.

  • I thought the industry was beyond this… I don’t play Battlefield or any FPSs but this really explains why kids these days still think saying things like this are acceptable.

    Many kids and myself included looks up to and believe in the morals and virtues in games they play. I don’t mean they believe in extremist action. But a kid who likes a game I believe is more likely to try and behave like the characters or persona’s within that game.

    I mean… I can’t be the only kid running around with a sword trying to save the world or protect the ones I care about. (Figuratively)

  • This is just an opinion — no one has to agree with it, and we by all means encourage discussion. Let’s just keep it diplomatic and reasonable — there’s no need to get angry/defensive and insult the writer or those who share his opinion because aside from being unpleasant, it’s really unnecessary!

    Thanks. 🙂

  • “Yes.

    It was a shocking thing to say, and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended.

    Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if they open it and read it, they don’t have to like it. And if you read it and dislike it, you don’t have to remain silent about it. You can write to me — You can complain about it. You can write to the publisher. You can write to the paper. You can write your own book.

    You can do all those things, but there your rights stop.

    No one has the right to stop me from writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or sold, or bought, or read.

    And that’s all I have to say on that subject.”
    -Philip Pullman

    TL;DR – If you don’t like it, you have every ability to stop consuming the media that is offending you. Close the game, uninstall it, never think about it again.

    • Given the tolerant tone of his work, I think Pullman would be rather annoyed with you using a quote relating to freedom of expression to tell people to ignore bigotry.

      The point of this article – and the original – is not that the author was personally offended and thus demands everything be changed to suit him. It’s that this kind of language – whether you understand it or not – feeds a culture that sees gay youth being 4 times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers.

      The right to offend is not the same as the right to harass. And while it could be argued that the game itself does not victimise, the dialogue does help create an environment where that harassment – even if it’s not deliberate – is the norm.

      “I don’t like what you’re saying” is very different to “These words cause real harm”. Pullman was talking about the former. This is the latter.

      • Good grief this is a good reply.

        I only really want to reply to quote this part:

        “I don’t like what you’re saying” is very different to “These words cause real harm”. Pullman was talking about the former. This is the latter”

  • It’s these replies to controversial articles that remind me Kotaku journalists get paid by the pageview. But I digress.

    Cocksuckers. I think Dennis almost has a point about the roots of the word. It does inherently imply that sucking cocks is bad. But over time I think words stay the same while losing their meanings. Maybe it hasn’t yet, but it will eventually. Look at fag. South Park tried to make it more acceptable as a general insult and maybe in a decade or less it will be.

    More on cocksuckers, surely you can call one a cocksucker while keeping in mind “sucking cocks isn’t a bad thing, it doesn’t make an individual a bad person”. Use of language doesn’t mean that the user is what the use may imply (ie, homophobic in this case).

  • This whole argument seem predicated upon the “fact” that anal sex is the sole domain of homosexual males. It isn’t. It’s just as rad for hetero couples, or lesbians with the correct aids.

    It’s an activity we can all get behind if we want to. Therefore, need for drama and debate: null and void.

  • I think people really need to stop making this out to be more then it actually is. “I’m getting fucked up the arse over here!” and “Fuck, I’m getting my shit pushed in here!” isn’t out and out saying someone is saying gay is bad.

    I think when someone says “that’s gay” it really does show how stupid people are. It’s just like back in the day when we used to use the word “nigger” or slap women around and it was ok. We as a society grew out of this and grew up in away. But in the same sentence we can’t say everything is “racist” or “wrong”. The cocksucker reference is 100% shines a bad light on EVERYONE. Men and women. Sucking “cock” isn’t just for gay men. Just like “carpet muncher” isn’t just for women. To be above a stereotype you have to realize the problem and go to the heart of it. Not just look at it one sided and believe that only one party is effected.

    The two quotes in question in MY OPINION aren’t homophobic because they aren’t saying “kill that shit packer” or “I hate fags who fuck asses”. Also if it was referring to rape. Getting raped by a woman is a fantasy by some men. That isn’t a case for happy married couples. (There are some out there believe it or not.) There has been reports of women raping men. It isn’t as you think though. It is usually by a women in power and forcing the man to have sex with them. Usually to keep their job. Rape isn’t always violent. If the person is fighting then it is very horrific and traumatic experience for anyone.

    The reason I say this is because it isn’t homophobic to be scared of rape. Anal sex by some no matter what gender you are can be enjoyable if done correctly. You would need lube and someone willing to go through with it. If it is rape then the chances of lube and willingness is out the window. That would mean it would be painful which is a fear of many people.

    Let me sum this up. I am happy we live in a society that looks down on racism, sexism, heterosexism, and everything else that makes other people less than someone else because they are different. With that said, not everything is out to belittle someone. The best example I can give is when Marcus Beer on Invisible Walls said Kojima should “learn the language” (aka English) because he messed up his lines at the 2011 VGA’s. Some people found this remake racist. Which it was a very rude and idiotic statement. But it still wasn’t racist. It was an opinion. Not a very good one, but none the less still his opinion.

    I just really hope people can not look at these BF3 quotes and demonize them and instead put the light on the real offenders. Like people who get on forums/mics and use these slurs. (gay, fag, dyke, etc) So I hope people will just stop using slurs and if you stop using them, then it can make a difference and we can stop living in a world that is stuck in the 1940’s way of thinking.

  • In FPS we demand: environment – real
    guns – real
    sounds – real
    graphics – real
    killing – real
    language – censored

    It’s funny, isn’t it?

    ps I wonder what the authors opinion about “Generation Kill” is.

    • Hmmm, I’m not sure what your point is. All those things listed are demanded by gamers in ‘realistic’ FPS’ in order to be ‘realistic’, or as realistic as the developers creativity mission statement allows for.

      And in this case BF3 is probably all of those things, with the word ‘censor’ not mentioned even once. No one is calling for it to be censored. Instead, we’re being asked what and why is this language in the game, and further, what are the consequences of it being there? Do the advantages outweigh the negatives? Indeed, what are the advantages and negatives? And not merely in a 2d fashion – but well beyond the mere dictionary.com meanings of the language.

      I think it’s great that this medium is pushing these boundaries, and asking people to make judgments about the merits of its content – in this case no one is particularly right or wrong and it’s endlessly fascinating to hear well rounded arguments one way or the other. It’s one step closer to proper game criticism, rather than the more masturbatory reviewing that plagues the place now

  • I did respond to the first article (rather indignantly) arguing that the language was more about subjugation and dominance than it was about homophobia.

    But highlighting it’s use within the same space as “cocksucker” – an insult not usually directed towards women – does make a good point.

    Ultimately there is probably less harm in refraining from using such language than there is in using it. There other ways to effectively portray the desperation in being pinned down by gunfire.

  • It’s not really about the literal interpretation of the words. “Cock sucker” is an accurate and factual description for someone who is performing oral sex on a man, but it’s regarded as a hurtful insult.

    Conversely “Carpet muncher”, while not complimentary, carries far less insult. Well, for men at least. To call a woman that is to imply she’s a lesbian, in which case it’s an insult. Doesn’t seem fair, does it?

    Think about that for a moment. To imply someone is a homosexual by calling them a name is commonly regarded as an insult. Isn’t that crazy? It’s ok to mistake a person doing their shopping as a customer assistant, but it’s not ok to mistake someone’s sexual orientation?

    To all the people saying it’s not a big deal, how would you feel if someone mistook you for being gay? That’s the issue here, that somehow being gay is undesirable, something to be avoided, or that we should strive to make sure we’re all masculine enough so there’s never any doubt.

    • Funny you mention that… I have long hair, and pretty soft jaw-line and am quite lithe. To add to that, I’m sometimes pretty effeminate… And yes, I have been asked if I was gay, a fair few times. Mostly in a kind manner, though it’s happened.

      My response was both surprise and amusement. I simply point out I’m not some macho dude and enjoy the things I enjoy.. And that I have a girlfriend 😛 But yes! It happens…

  • A very well expressed article. Thanks for writing it. I am a gay male gamer and words and phrases like those mentioned in the article are the main reason I tend to avoid online multiplayer. Believe me, it matters.

  • It’s nice to see some of what was said cleared up, however it’s now gone back to, ‘HOMOPHOBIA IS BAD’, where the initial article was about SHOULD games depict these things in order to seem more realistic, which is the aim with such titles…

    1. I still say YES, if it IS happening, why not? If anything, there now ARE articles like this talking about the issue. Homophobia in general, if acted on, can be harmful, hell, people bash people for being gay… Like most steretypes and other things so.

    So again ~~ YES ~~ I applaud DICE for keeping it in there, if that’s what’s being said, then why censor us to the truth of warfare or things we may overlook because it’s somewhere we can’t see it. Maybe this IS a good way of opening us to those realities?

    2. Context IS important, so let ME set a context sensitive argument for you..
    I am an early 20’s White male living in Melbourne, Australia…

    From what I can see, have experienced, etc… We are damn tolerant and accepting of homosexuals. Much to the Aussie way of, ‘Fair go son’ and, ‘She’ll be alright’, we have similar apathy to such things because we generally couldn’t give 2 fucks about who’s sucking who’s cock or pushing in who’s shit.. We tend to care more about if the bank is going to take our home, keeping a solid job, our resavoirs being over 50% to be able to live and so on…

    We are a sordid and diverse bunch here. So that’s MY backround…
    So to ME, when I PLAY BF3 and hear these lines etc, I don’t immediately relate it to Homosexual insult and distate within the US Army. To me, it’s like, meh.. It’s war, I’d probably say that.

    And no, NOT because I’d liken it to being butt raped by a gay dude… But because I often compare the fear and overpowered sense of it to such a position.. You know, between life and death, under gunfire.. etc.

    3. On the cocksuckers issue… Seriously? I’ve used it offensively to woman as well as men, the implication behind it is not universal to homosexual cock sucking. Women can be called a cock sucker and be offended too :S

    I also use it in a good way… Some women like being called a cocksucker mid felatio, who am I to argue… Maybe I should pull them up on how I might be offending a gay guy somewhere in the world by saying it.

    Blah… There’s a right way and wrong way to make a point/ make a change etc. Articles like this, not the case!

  • The original article brought up Generation Kill as “hyper-real” but Generation Kill (the book, not the film) is a documentary. All the offensive and homophobic language used is real.

    The US Armed Forces aren’t filled with walking replicas of Captain America. They are filled with many coarse men, including many from demographics which tend to be… less than tolerant… of non-heterosexuals (the US Armed Forces tend to skew toward socially-conservative working class/rural southerners).

    BF3 aimed to be a realistic military shooter. Homophobic language, whilst clearly unpleasant, is (unfortunately) realistic in this context.

    Also, is the specific dialogue of “getting my shit pushed” and “I’m being fucked!” based in a hatred of homosexuality? Perhaps, but I think it is more complicated. If we unpack the dialogue, they are expressing fear not of being gay (i.e. attracted to members of the same sex exclusively) but rather fear of being anally penetrated by another man, i.e. buttfucked.

    Note the cultural prevalance of sayings like “I’m gonna fuck you” and “I will make you my bitch.” These sayings are often used by straight men.

    Is it really homosexual sex being feared here? Or is it more a fear of being symbolically defiled/conquered/emasculated by being sexually “defeated” by another man and thus rendered an inferior male?

    Extremely macho cultures tend to have attitudes like “Latin Bisexuality,” also known as “It’s Not Gay If You’re On Top.” Combine that with the military’s heirarchical pack-mentality (which is an institutional necessity) and you can see how things go.

    In short, I don’t think it is a fear of homosexuality per se. Rather, it is fear of being “defiled forever.” You know how in many Muslim nations that a woman is seen as having lost her honor if she is raped? This attitude is the gender-swapped equivalent; men lose their honor (and man-ness, worthiness, etc) if they are butt-raped.

    Remember the “F-Word.” “Fuck you!” is a way of insulting others, as is “go fuck yourself” and “get fucked.” Being the fuckER is totally okay, since you’re not getting fucked. This attitude is encoded in our culture’s most common epithet!

    Also, another point that needs to be made is that dislike of buttsex or even fear of emasculation-by-being-buttfucked is in no way proof of homophobia. I know gay men that don’t like buttsex. Some even find it symbolically emasculating.

    That said, I have one big problem with the original article; specifically, the argument that homophobic speech in Battlefield 3 will generate more homophobic attitudes (why hello again, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis!!!). This logic assumes a Foucauldian belief that we individuals are “socially constructed” by “the texts of society” (i.e. all the content of our minds is determined by the media of any kind we consume). This denies free will, including the well-known fact that human beings REPURPOSE, REIMAGINE and RECONSTRUCT the “texts of society” to their own individual ends (obvious example: fanfiction). We control the texts, they don’t control us.

    But here’s the other problem; “homophobic video games create homophobia in the real world” is the EXACT SAME LOGIC as “violent video games create violence in the real world.” If we are all socially constructed by the texts of society, then seeing X call Y a “faggot” is no less influential than seeing X shoot Y.

    In short, the logic inexorably leads to censorship; if we want to stamp out violence and anti-nonhetero sentiment, we must censor violence as well as mean words.

    And censorship is evil.

    So yes, whilst I can see why people would be offended by the choice of language in BF3, it is (unfortunately) realistic, it may not be homophobia per se but rather indicative of other kinds of backwards attitudes, and as much as I’d like to see our culture treat nonheterosexuals equally I cannot endorse the use of any form of censorship (which is what the logic inevitably leads to) to advance even a noble goal like this.

    • I WISH I could command the english language as well as you good sir. I agree wholeheartedly and endorse this post… That’s the best way what I’ve been thinking could possibly be worded! THANKS! +69 <- Everyone wins!

        • I don’t want to censor the game I just don’t want to hear that kind of rubbish in the game and it suprises me how many people are defending the fact that it should stay in the game, do people really want to hear I’m gonna kill these cocksuckers and the other rubbish? I didn’t even realise it was intended to tell others that a fellow soldier was getting supressed, Rather than stupid crap like that, tell me informative crap like, I’m being suppressed/getting shot at here, considering there are other voice clips telling you actual information i don’t see the point of these having been recorded or included. just wasn’t necessary.

          • I’m not saying that you want to censor the game. Nor am I saying that the dialogue is tasteful; it clearly isn’t. It might also indeed be less than informative to players.

            I am not a Battlefield 3 player, so I can’t speak from experience with the game itself. However, BF3 explicitly aimed to be a realistic military shooter, and the real-world US military has MANY people that speak in very coarse ways.

            If every single soldier in BF3 spoke in gender-neutral, inclusive, non-offensive language, it would simply not be realistic. Militaries in general aren’t polite organizations.

            I don’t particularly want to hear huge amounts of profanity just because. But this seemed like a situation where the profanity is there for the purposes of realism.

          • I think you’re a hero! Again, if I, or everyone else, could construct language as you do, or just to have the ability to clearly understand, and not take things so personally, and emotionally, but with clear logic, then maybe the human race would be a better place!

  • Ah little PC drones, how little you know of the world outside of your air conditioned office and hybrid car.

    If you think what is said in BF3 is bad hang around some real soldiers.

  • The problem is, rape is not about sex or sexuality. It’s about power, domination, abuse, violence, even hatred. the very example you used in your first article, about the soldier whom was gang raped by other soldiers, demonstrates that forced sodomy has nothing to do with sexuality. The men whom raped him may very well classify themselves as straight, they didn’t rape him because they were sexually attracted to him, they did it because they hated him, and wanted to humiliate him, emasculate him. They even said to him, they were showing him who was boss. They called him ‘commie faggot,’ which I cannot imagine a bunch of homosexual men calling another male as an insult.

    This is to show, that forced sodomy has nothing to do with being gay. And so, yelling “I’m getting fucked up the ass” or “I’m getting my shit pushed in’ is NOT saying “OH DEAR, THE ENEMY IS GAY AND THEY WANT TO MAKE LOVE TO MY ANUS!!” They are merely expressing their displeasure at being forced down by enemy aggression. you ARE being too sensitive, to the point that it almost feels manufactured for site hits.

    “cocksuckers’ would have been a much, much better example for your case.

    • Jesse,

      I agree with you to an extent; the psychology behind the “getting my shit pushed” thing is clearly related to the whole “rape as a show of dominance” thing.

      However, multiple studies have shown that rape DOES have a significant sexual component. For one, rapists DO tend to choose victims that look (to them) more sexually attractive (note that this DOESN’T mean the victim is responsible! People can choose to resist the sexual urge and male rapists that say “I’m a man, I can’t help it” are expressing a misandrist sentiment). For two, they’ve also shown that rapists on average prefer pornography of explicitly consensual sex to pornography of (simulated) non-consensual sex. That said, they DID enjoy the non-con porn more than the non-rapists studied.

      None of this lessens the evil of rape. It simply shows that rape, whilst obviously being (in many cases to varying degrees) about power and violence and domination, isn’t “not about sex.” It clearly is partly about sex/sexuality to some degree (after all, rape is by definition sex, how can sex not be about sex?).

      Basically, rape is about BOTH sex and power/violence/domination.

      There’s a reason that these two things are linked so strongly… it probably has something to do with animalistic evolutionary remnants in our brains. That said, sex doesn’t have to be about power/violence/domination at all! Just saying that for many people, to some degree, there’s a linkage.

      • Long time lurker, first time commenter. 😛
        I agree, this language has more to do with the fear of rape than it does with homophobia. I think this fear is shared by everyone – gay, straight, male, female, transgender, EVERYONE. And rightfully so, it’s a fucking horrific crime, it messes you up for life, mentally, sexually and sometimes physically. I get so angry when people use the term “raped” as a term for having a gaming, sporting or any kind of victory over anyone. Ugh.
        Also, I know a lot of gay men who HATE being penetrated anally and will never “take”, and yet a lot of straight men who enjoy it – and why not, the male G-spot(prostate) is there for a reason. 😉 So no I don’t think ye olde buttsecks is the definition of being gay.
        Perhaps for hetero cismales there is more of a fear because being a “man” in the traditional sense is having very defined boundaries that must not be breached. Its like their identity is tied to protecting their ass, protecting their borders, etc. It’s an unhealthy thing to base your whole self on a cultural construct anyway, so it’s more of a reflection of the insecurities of the person who says things like what was quoted in the article than it does about anyone else.
        So yeah, TL;DR and I agree. It’s not homophobic so much as macho posturing, and the sort of guys who say homophobic stuff are always the first to drop their pants for a bit of rectal exploration on the sly, anyway. 😛

        • m0sh,

          Insightful reply. I mostly agree with you.

          That said, gay men that will never take it but happily give it are, 95% of the time, the ultimate in “macho posturing” themselves.

          That said, yeah, I agree with you that simply reducing things down to “homophobia” is a rabid oversimplification considering that we’re dealing with a whole bundle of interconnected issues… sex-as-conquest, sexuality, and ‘proper’ masculinity.

          You’re also correct about some heterosexual men enjoying prostate stimulation. Let’s be honest, people like pleasure and thus if there’s a nerve ending SOMEWHERE, they’ll stimulate it by whatever means necessary. Men are people, too.

          • 95% really? I haven’t spoken to 95% of gay males to make such generalizations, but most of the gay dudes I know who don’t like taking it are pretty damn girly.
            Plus I’ve learned(in my limited experience), the straighter and more macho the dude, the more they seem to secretly want to be penetrated. The whole forbidden fruit thing, I guess. Humans. They’re weird.

          • m0sh,

            I admit, I pulled that statistic out of my ass (appropriate I guess, given the topic!). However, I’m speaking from my own (also limited) experience.

  • Seriously bigger things to worry about in the world right now, as my gay friend would say “stop acting like a bunch of fags”
    The only thing worse than homophobia is being painfully self aware and tiptoe around the subject.
    If the game was straight people vs homosexuals it would be a different story.
    “the enemy has redecorated the Mcom, it is now fabulous”

  • sorry…but you’ve gone down the wrong track altogether, and THIS is the reason society is so messed up right now. If people spent their time ignoring what might offend them, instead of all their time worrying that they might offend–like we used too–we’d all be a lot better off, instead of a world of worried pussies not wanting to upset anyone. The behavior you are trying to reinforce only leads to weakness…and it’s a slippery slope indeed.

    And…by definition, women cannot physically rape men. They don’t have a penis. So not wanting to be raped by men is NOT homophobic…it is sensible,as opposed to PC nonsense.

    • “And…by definition, women cannot physically rape men. They don’t have a penis”

      Lisbeth Salander begs to differ. 😉

      • mOsh,

        From what I know, Australian Law defines “rape” in terms of Nonconsensual-Penis-In-Vagina. And it has to be real penis too, not a strap-on. Everything else is counted as “sexual assault” but not “rape.”

        That said, the law is an ass. “Rape” means nonconsensual sex, although I think it should have to pass a certain point before its ‘full on rape’ since “sexual activity” is a broad and partly subjective category (nonconsensually touching a woman’s breast is different from nonconsensually penetrating her anally).

        Yes, women can rape men. Rape isn’t the original sin of the penis, contrary to what Andrea Dworkin or the like would have one believe. The blog “Toy Soldiers” discusses male rape victims very well.

    • John,

      You are correct that not wanting to be raped by men is not homophobic. The vast majority of gay and bisexual men also don’t want to be raped by men.

      That said, women can rape men. “Rape” is forcing/coercing/defrauding someone into sex (i.e. ‘nonconsensual sex’). It is a gender-neutral crime. Men actually DO have the right to say no. They might be the ones with the headache, for instance. They might also actually have (*gasp*) standards for prospective sexual partners and thus not want to get it on with anything that has the right plumbing.

      It is not “politically correct” to note that men have a right to not be forced into sexual activity. It is perfectly compatible with the individual rights/classical liberal/enlightenment traditions.

  • Wow… Issues day today in Kotaku tower or what…?!

    I read the whole thing, and I’d like to say, while I agree that when breaking down the language to what it literally means, and taking it in a literal sense, then it probably is offensive.. Especially if you’re a homosexual male, and you DO have an issue with hearing people using the word as an insult, even though 99% of the time they are using it as a general insult to let go of some anger in retaliation to being killed or run over by a tank..

    I seriously feel this article is more about addressing how this guy feels about modern-day society in general, then what it is to experience, what maybe or may not be, someone using what’s seen as ‘bias language’ in BF3.

    I use homophobic insults continuously when getting pissed off at video-games. Not because I have anything against anyone’s sexuality; I’d like to think I’m a pretty open-minded person, whatever, live your life how you want.. To me there is no such thing as right or wrong, that comes down to ones judgement, and all people are different, and have different perceptions of life, and what right and wrong means. I use ‘bias language,’ although not in the same context, to relieve myself of the stress I feel when something doesn’t go my way in-game..

    I have to say I agree with the part about not using such language around people it may effect, and especially people you may care about or respect. I think this is common courtesy really. I guess it depends on how sensitive you are too, and how much you might respect another persons sexuality, although this person might not actually give a fuck about these words, as the context is completely different.

    I’m not too sure where I’m going with this really. On the surface these words mean nothing. Anyone who uses them like I do will know this. But someone who says it as an insult to someone, with the intention of calling them a gay or homosexual, then they are homophobic.. I don’t know, maybe they don’t agree with homosexuality. Is that there fault, in a society such as the one we live in. We’re, after all, an extremely young race in relativity to how old mmmm existence is, or the universe. And if we are going to get along nicely, then I guess things will have to change over time.

    I just wanna play video-games……

  • Battlefield 3 is a war game, people cuss in war, end of story.

    (yes I read both articles, yes I disagree with them, no I will not debate this I’m simply stating what I feel, I don’t feel like typing an essay right now its late maybe tommorow)

  • It’s not homophobia. Words like ‘fag’ have evolved past their previous meaning and are used to refer to a wide variety of things but for the most part is used by children as a generic insult. They don’t use the term thinking ‘HOMOSEXUAL’ they use the term as a generic insult. It’s like saying ‘that’s so gay’ it’s not referring to sexuality, it’s just a generic thing to say to refer to something in a negative light.

    Homosexuals need to stop interpreting every use of words like ‘fag’ and ‘gay’ as homophobia.

  • Holy crap you (figuratively) love the sound of your own voice. Why use one word when twenty will do, eh?

    Writing such a long winded reply on such a tiny tiny little issue really does just evoke a boring old fart saying ‘And another thing’ and continuing to rant, long after everyone else has left the room.

  • “It’s basically a semiotic exercise, pulling sentences apart and figuring out what the words mean underneath the words themselves”

    Think you might find that this is semantics, since you are arguing on the basis of a mutually understood meaning between the communicators. You are employing semiotics in your analysis, but that is as much because – to my mind – you’re not sufficiently distinguishes between the internal context of dialogue between the characters, and the external context of your interpretation of that dialogue as a subjective observer.

    That’s important, because as you can see from the comments on this and the previous article, your interpretation of the underlying meaning differs from others, some with equally valid claims to authority on the subject. You’ve got straight civilian men who agree, gay serviceman who disagree, vice versa, and other combinations, too – based on their own interpretation of intent and meaning in their context.

    Only point this out, because I think the problem with your assertion is that you are making a highly subjective, context-dependent accusation, but presenting it as an objective fact. Whether or not the language is homophobic depends on who says what to whom, and who is listening, because ultimately, it’s your interpretation. You can be both right, wrong, neither and both, since you never really know what’s in the mind of anyone else.

  • What I love is that you outlined the cookie-cutter “lets take offence for someone else” Straight white male Hipster attitude.

    I have shitloads of gay friends. They play Battlefield 3, and they don’t give a damn about the line. Perhaps you can represent the women who aren’t in the game now?

  • “What’s going in this thr- OW LAWD”

    Seriously though, this homophobia thing is just replicating the real life US military, it’s not the game who is homophobic but the real life culture over there.
    It’s like racism/sexism in old cartoons, it’s just what the times were like back then.

    I was hoping this artical was going to be about the response from the developers.

  • Is this article SERIOUS?

    Whoever wrote this article should be fired. I have never encountered such tremendous amount of IGNORANCE and AUDACITY in a videogame article before. This guy is just trying to come up with something, anything, because he can’t come up with anything interesting, and thus pester on the minimal, most ridiculous things he comes across in order to get a buck or two from the website job. Movies have thrown cracks and jokes at homosexualism for decades now, and yet he tries to boycott a videogame about KILLING PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD, not because of the killing, but because the lunatic murderers in the game insult the opposition, with what? THINGS THAT ACTUALLY INSULT.

    You sir, should feel ashamed for making up an article like this. It’s really, really sad what you are doing.

  • If they are using the term “motherfuckers”, then wouldn’t people born from incestuous relationships be offended?

  • i pose this question: if you where half way around the world, facing a bunch of angry militants, bullets flying in all directions, would you not be prone to using foul language? i know that i most definitely would, and that “i’m getting fucked in the ass over here” would be relatively tame, lost in the myriad of other foul language that seems to be constantly flowing from my mouth. it’s merely profanity for profanity’s sake. that’s all it is. infact, i’ve found that profanity in almost all instances as lost practically all literal meaning these days. terms such as “nigger” (who’s use was once considered a hate-crime) are now popular slang, and the word “f.uck” has so many uses in the english language i would lay claim to knowing less than half of them.

    i understand that your trying to convey a message: that this “homophobic” dialogue is having a direct impact on society as a whole. but given the isn’t really any reference to anything homosexual, both articles sound like they could have come from the Westboro Baptist Church. perhaps “rape-o-phobic” might be a better term? numerous reference are made to the american military and it’s blatant xenophobia, but i’m afraid that the assumption that it is confined to just the american military is quite ignorant. take a step back and look at western society as a whole, a society which is admittedly dominated by the U.S, and which is also incredibly xenophobic. 20 years ago i would have agreed your article and taken to heart, but we’ve moved on since then, and i think you should too.

    ~this is my opinion, i’m not trying to say the article is wrong, merely that i strongly disagree with it~

  • while your point is true it can be said that you are right but i don’t think dice did this on purpose you have to look at the context if you are getting shot at cant move your teammates are off who knows where, you need help so you might end up saying things you normally don’t just to get their focus on you so they can help you out if i was in war and my squad mate screamed out “Helped I’m getting fucked in the asre over here!” in the middle of a firefight i would turn to see what the hell is going on I’m sure you would too, why wouldn’t you i mean something must be happening right? its like how people can troll others by screaming FIRE when there isn’t one it just grabs your attention which is why they probably put it in there in the first place

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!