This Gaymer's Follow-Up

As with the predecessor to this post, trigger warnings apply for homophobia and various attempts at internet bullying.

Before I publishedThis Gaymer's Story, I'd never quite put out there the major instances of all the homophobia I have experienced. Bits and pieces to friends, but it was largely something that was only known to myself. As someone who refuses to be classified as just a victim, there was something in me loath to put all of that information in a public space, but I felt it was important for a few reasons.

Before I get into that, it might be useful to outline the order of events: I was in Fulda, Germany, having just left Berlin, and preparing to move to Tennessee to live with one of my best friends from uni. News of the BlizzCon event caught my attention, and after it was posted on GayGamer, I promoted it to other sites, including Rock, Paper, Shotgun. They wrote up the occurrence and I made the mistake of reading the comments.

What I read fuelled such a level of bile in my throat that I felt the need to spew out a post explaining why straight men were not the ones capable of "reclaiming" faggot, nor dictating who could be offended by it. As Walker himself noted in the comments, the fact that the comments occurred showed a prime example of why homophobia still is an issue in games. At that point, it honestly stopped being just about Blizzard or BlizzCon, which is why I first posted it on Vorpal Bunny Ranch. It was about the community that comprises gaming.

So, I hesitated in posting, but felt it was necessary. I was opening my personal story and was also quite cognisant that I may well be verbally attacked for posting such, but that I was in a position to be able to take the brunt of those attacks in whatever form they came. In fact, in the past two months my posting has dropped off a bit, largely because of an international move and figuring out I feel about the entire affair, but not because I have felt particularly unwelcome (gamers, you can keep saying these things and it serves to irritate me, but won't get me to stay away).

A few hours after posting my story, I received an email from Kirk Hamilton; Stephen Totilo had read my post and apparently mentioned it to Kirk. Their next step was asking me to repost it to Kotaku. Shortly after that Tami Baribeau from The Border House also contacted me, asking to repost it there. While I am a staff writer for the latter, the former presented a curious opportunity for me: it would put the story in the exact place where I felt it could reach people who might not have thought of it in such terms.

As should be apparent, I am not opposed to being confrontational. I have been fortunate in my life that I have always been sociable in a way that I never failed at finding friends (despite how caustic I can appear at times online, I'd like to think I have a certain charm about me in person), which has led to constantly having a core support network. This in turn meant I felt empowered to come out of the closet, become an activist, and generally suffer whatever was slung in my direction. That is not to say it hasn't been difficult, or painful, but it allowed me a level of defiance that I do not recommend for everyone based on their own circumstances.

Therefore, I chatted with Kirk via IM and arranged for This Gaymer's Story to be published on Kotaku that evening. Some trepidation entered my mind: that week was supposed to be my down week between Germany and my return to the US. On the other hand, I felt that mixture of audacity and carefree attitude that commonly happens in liminal phases of one's life.

I knew what to expect in some regard: tl;dr. Threats via email. Comments picking apart individual points of my story, seeking to ignore the larger picture I was painting. Straight men selectively quoting Louis C.K.'s "faggot" sketch (and failing to link to a later point in his career:this poker gamewith some of his peers, one of whom is gay). I even predicted and was correct, that some people would try to verify the facts of my molestation case in Clarksville (which I found both tiring and amusing, largely because I was a minor and my name was never used).

What I did not expect was all the people emailing me to thank me, or sharing their own stories. Those were the ones that wrecked me, in truth. Reading about other peoples' pain only further drove home how my story was just one in many, in just the games industry alone. After all, in my own life I have known all manner of people, and in particular LGBT persons (what I get for volunteering at LGBT centres), who have had much worse lives than mine. Which is to say I was confused that some people made the argument that I was saying my life was the worst! No, it wasn't, and I'm quite aware of this fact.

Of course, I am also quite aware that I opened myself to be ridiculed. As many reported, on WoW-predominant sites I was seen as annoying and trying to ruin peoples' fun. The thing is, I am OK with that last part, particularly if someone considers the use of faggot to be a requirement for their fun. Predictably, here was where entered discussions about having thin skins and just needing to deal with it. As I'd stated already, having a thick skin is something I tend to have. Of course, just because one has a resistance to some manner of jackassery, that does not mean one enjoys being poked and prodded with insults and predictable arguments.

No, you see, I would call someone who has a thick skin and allows people to constantly test the limits of it — without doing anything — apathetic, completely desensitised, or afraid. One accusation in particular that caught my eye was saying I was just putting my life out there for attention, which I feel is actually perfectly true. Generally speaking, in order to make a point, it is required to have peoples' attention.

What I did was not just for myself, however, but to get a conversation rolling in the opposite direction of where I was seeing it headed. The truth is, I rather doubt I'd ever be able to convince everyone of my point of view. I have never been quite so idealistic. My method is to give people a voice, an example, a point of reference. Eventually, what I would like to see is enough voices in opposition so that faggot is not erroneously "reclaimed" as "just an insult that has nothing to do with gay people".

Of course, the argument against such (despite addressing it, people felt they still had the right of it and my attempts are futile) tends to be that language changes, mutates and that one is unable to stop such. Which is a convenient excuse isn't it? To assume that a societal change cannot be stopped? We could probably have a good conversation about fate when it comes to that. However, I feel it probably says quite a bit about the feelings of powerlessness some people have in thinking they can affect change. And a person by their lonesome? That might be difficult, but it isn't about doing it alone.

It is about reporting those instances of people using such words when you see it come across your screen in an MMO. If you have the patience and ability, it is about confronting them on various voice chats and telling them to knock off their behaviour, letting them know such is not welcome, nor will it be harboured. Boys may be boys, but that does not mean boys need be arseholes in public.

While some may be perfectly willing to say it is inevitable and we are asking for change, I tend to believe it is change that can be effected. It requires this discussion right here to let others know it is OK to stand up against any language that seeks to denigrate someone for who they are, whether that be related to their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, disabilities, or any such things that make just one part of our identities.

Denis Farr is a loquacious fellow whose work can be found can be found at Vorpal Bunny Ranch, The Border House, Gamers With Jobs and Gay Gamer. Republished with permission.


Comments

    Unfortunately we are involved in a very homophobic culture, in my personal opinion. The banter that goes on in lobbies for example is absolutely ridiculous, i'm in a heterosexual relationship of 3 years but i dont hide the fact that i support gay marriage and homosexuals in general. But i cop it from all directions, i get called gay and i just tell them its not insulting to call someone whos gay, gay. But the ritual abuse has to stop, funs fun but if you're saying words to hurt you really need to take a long hard look at yourself and jump off a cliff. If anything we should help each other out, isn't the idea of these games working as a team? I for one will raise my hand and say if you need help standing up for yourself, i'm here for you. I will stand right next to you and get the same abuse. I will fight for your rights to be you like we should all do for each other.

    I couldn't agree more Dennis. People are always so hateful when they can hide behind an avatar. I work with teenagers and it's worrying to see their often homophobic default position. I consistently work to challenge these views with them. Keep up the fight mate. The change has to happen across all media, and has to start somewhere with gaming.

    I have no problem with LGBT people.

    The only reason i can think why people would hate them is due to religion. Otherwise they are just another lot of people with different interests.

    I'd happily support any movement that would improve LGBT's rights.

    Good on you for posting this.

      I think it is missing the point to blame religion for this. There are plenty of religious people who don't have that view, and plenty of non-religious people who have a problem with homosexuals / lgbti as a whole.

      Blaming it on religion is just another form of short sighted bigotry.

      Also: how would you explain racism? Sexism? Are they only caused by religion as well, rather than people hating what's different?

        You can trace it all back to religion for creating these things (go way back), and region and society are tied together, basis for laws etc etc.

        I do agree, but religion does play a part in this.

          exactly. It's basically tribalism; Which is reinforced by religion. Of course there are secular instances of tribalism to..

          "You agree" with what, exactly? That religion is not the sole and only cause of homophobia in society?

          Which is it? First you state that the only reason you could understand people being homophobic is religion, ie: homophobia only exists because of religion. Now you're saying it's part of the reason, but there are other reasons homophobia exists. Quite a remarkable change in the space of 45 minutes.

          It's also a massive cop out to say "Well, if you go back far enough, religion had an effect on society, so in the end, everything is due to religion". Seriously? So if someone in some religion (which you didn't specify) says something eight thousand years ago, anything that happens going forward is a result of it?

          What about the religions that completely embraced homosexuality and all other sexualities? The Greeks had a pretty big civilisation with a nice little religion that didn't give a toss - so are we discounting them?

          The Roman religion didn't really give a toss either. But I guess we can discard that too.

          Egyptian religion? Not really bothered by it. Again, let's discard it.

          While we're at it, let's ignore the fact that these three societies, which like all societies in the same point of development in human culture, had religion of some sort. Let's completely ignore that these three religious societies have had the most obvious and long-lasting affect on our current Western culture. That sort of information really doesn't mesh with your view that homophobia is purely the construct of religion, so it's wrong, right?

          Let's ignore other religions like Buddhism, Shinto, Tao, etc. Those "don't count", right?

          Let's also ignore the fact that tribalism existed well in advance of any organised religion or distributed faith system. Let's ignore "ownership" of women in early societies that may have worshipped a really large bird in the woods next door. Let's ignore the "racism" inherent in tribal societies which formed as a method of protection from "others".

          What we should do, according to your extremely logical and well researched point, it sheet it all home to a small group of religions that didn't actually exist until thousands of years later.

          Then, once we're at that point, we can argue that anyone who isn't religious is "living in a world shaped by a subset of religions, so subconsciously their bigotry is simply a result of the ubiquitousness of those religions" aka: they're being brainwashed, it's not a personal choice, boo religion. Because that's totally reasonable, right? Let's absolve rational human beings of responsibility and blame a religion they may only know of in passing.

          While we're at it, let's clarify that subset as "Christian", "Islamic" and "Jewish" - even though "Christianity" isn't a religion. We can also ignore the fact that there are "Christian" group religions that have openly gay BISHOPS that preside of gay marriage ceremonies all the time. That doesn't fit your argument either, does it?

          "It's all due to religion" and "Religion is a big reason for homophobia" aren't logical or even remotely true arguments. You know what is it? Bigotry.

          I know it's cool to hate on religion and anyone who says they're religious online, but your entire argument can be summed up as this:

          "I hate discrimination and bigotry, especially against a group I feel are being treated poorly. As part of my question to remove this bigotry, I'm not going to discriminate and degenerate another group that I don't like too much, subject them to bigotry and sweeping generalisations, and totally not see how I'm a massive hypocrite".

          tl;dr: Homophobia and discrimination of any sort are not intrinsic linked to "religion", you massive hypocritical idiot.

            * "I'm going to"

              Don't bother, religion is the scapegoat for anyone who has no idea about history/is atheist because it's fashionable. It's just another bandwagon, and he'll spout anything he's heard and then run instead of reading the responses.

                This comment has been reported for inappropriate content and is awaiting review.

                  "Factual analysis"

                  "All people who are homophobic are religious; religion is the cause of all homophobia. Even the religions that embrace homosexual pairings as nothing out of the ordinary, and have some of their highest clergy being openly gay and accepted.

                  Someone can not be homophobic unless they are also religious, this non-religious homophobia cannot exist ever".

                  Sure is factual in here.

                Hardly.

                Since when has religion become fashionable?
                I know my history, do you?

                Furthermore the fact you have resorted to insults is appalling.

              Religion is not the sole cause of homophobia but the fact that nearly all religions seem to have anti homosexual verses (even newly created religions) and the fact that so many politicians cite religious beliefs as the reason to deny homosexual equality shows that it’s a very real factor.
              How dare you call someone an idiot for criticizing religion when it does clearly discriminate against homosexuals and influences people with the power to actually make changes to the law.
              Homophobia would still exist without religion but I wonder on what scale in comparison.

                Actually, I didn't criticise anyone for "daring to criticise religion".

                What I did do, and will continue to do, is criticise someone for stating that the sole reason someone would be homophobic is that they are religious.

                Let's examine the core statement for a moment:
                - Someone who is religious MAY be homophobic;
                - Someone who is homophobic HAS TO BE religious.

                This is a clear and obvious logical falsehood. While it is fine to say that someone's religious beliefs may encourage them to be homophobic, or more likely that someone will distort their religious beliefs to justify their homophobia (and that both are bad things, certainly), it is patently wrong to proclaim that if someone is homophobic they must be religious - that there would be no homophobia without religion.

                If anyone wants to argue that, then yes, they're an absolute idiot.

                More to the point, their idiocy allows for the real core and root of homophobia to go unexamined and unchallenged. It allows for other avenues for the hate to go undetected, and means that the actual problem (homophobia) can not be holistically addressed.

                As a side note, anybody's position that relies on obvious falsehoods to promote bigotry or discrimination towards any group of people, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR END GOAL IS, is absolute bullshit and should be called as such from the very start, no matter who or what it is.

            Abrahamic religion must take a high percentage of the blame for the bigotry in society.

              Dude, you're obviously a catholic (or an eclesiastic, did u invoke the holy spirit before that rant, coz it seemed u were speaking in tongues).
              Logical falsehood #1: "man shall not lie with another man, as with a woman"...etc etc....how does this require "distortion" to insight homophobia...??
              Logical falsehood #2: Attacking "Religeon" allows the "root" cause of homophobia to go un-noticed.....tell that to Africans dude, I'm gay and Australian, and my high school years were hell, but it's NOTHING compared to what Religeos missionaries have done to Africa.
              Religeon is a communicable psychosis.....a psychological virus....END OF STORY. Zap

                If you're suggesting I'm Catholic because I put together a rational and logical argument based on facts, then sure, call me that.

                Somehow, I'm gathering you might not be of the opinion that Catholic and those things go together, though! :-p

                I really don't want this to devolve into an atheism vs religion fight, because:
                a) It's the internet, that's an argument that will only go in circles, no-one on either side will convince each other, and it's stupid.
                b) More importantly, it'll derail the entire point of this article, and I'd hate for that to happen. If you actually want to have the religion "discussion" (aka: screaming match), feel free to plop something in TAY and I would be more than happy to discuss, once we stick to logic and facts.

                That said:

                "Logical falsehood #1: “man shall not lie with another man, as with a woman”…etc etc….how does this require “distortion” to insight homophobia…?? "

                Well, there's a lot of things in this one. Firstly, you'd need to look into the reasoning and context behind that ruling in the Old Test, as well as most of the others in there. It's not as simple as "We hate homosexuals". There's a logical reasoning behind that based on the location of the people at the time as well as the medical/schools of thoughts, as well as the OT edicts against shellfish and pigs. Most of that is outdated now by modern advances.

                "Logical falsehood #2: Attacking “Religeon” allows the “root” cause of homophobia to go un-noticed…..tell that to Africans dude, I’m gay and Australian, and my high school years were hell, but it’s NOTHING compared to what Religeos missionaries have done to Africa."

                I'm sorry to hear your life was hard due to your sexuality. That's a bullshit thing to have happen. However, that, and whatever happened in Africa, is a side issue. Focusing on a "Rargh, religion evil, religion cause gay-hate, HULK SMASH!" does actually mean that other non-religious avenues for hate are overlooked, which is bullshit. All avenues need to be highlighted and confronted for what they are.

                "Religeon is a communicable psychosis…..a psychological virus….END OF STORY. Zap""

                Well, no, no it isn't. I'm perfectly okay with you taking a fairly extreme view of religion and comparing it to a mental disorder. You're more than welcome to do so. However, I think by doing that you're making a pretty big mistake.

                And yes, telling people who are religious that they've got some sort of mental disease is denigration, and it is also purely offensive.

                To quote the article itself:

                " It requires this discussion right here to let others know it is OK to stand up against any language that seeks to denigrate someone for who they are, whether that be related to their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, disabilities, or any such things that make just one part of our identities."

                Discrimination is bullshit. We need to repeatedly and vocally point it out for bullshit and work on changing it.

                However, trying to achieve equality and acceptance by denying equality to another group, or refusing to accept them, is complete and utter bullshit. All you're doing is perpetrating a cycle of hate and discrimination, only this time, you get to be on the side of the bullies.

                With that, I'm out. I can only see this discussion going down the internet debate hole, and I want to get out before someone mentions Hitler.

            If you read my post, it said "i can think of"

            I'm not discriminating against any group as my self am religious, i am pointing out it's hard to find a religion that does not forbid same gender procreation.

            The point i agree with is that is it NOT THE SOLE contributor but it is one. Another point could be the fact same sex couples can't procreate which is the ONLY reason for it yes?

    It's nice to read an article about an LGBT gamer's experiences, and see there is a much more substantial response in a positive light (people empathising, sharing their own experiences etc.) than there used to be compared to 10, or even 5, years ago.
    Regarding the use of various insults in gaming, I think it will naturally shift over time to a different focus, though I assume it'll always be focused on segregation and discrimination, due to human nature.

    I do not see the logic behind the self seperatism of "Gaymers". I do not view straight people as "Straightmers" and thus a different category.

    The internet you browse and the games you play are not affected by sexual orientation, as does it not dictate your identity or personality. So the idea of claiming your sexual preference on the anonymous canvas that is your internet persona is something that is lost to me.

    That being said I fully support the drive to eliminate homophobia and slowly eliminating the deeply embedded prejudice that is in evident in society.

    I just feel that gamers should be gamers, come one, come all. Any race, religion, orientation should be equal in our community, and the propogation of hatred that is slowly seeping into internet culture needs to be stopped.

      If I understand it correctly, I think the logic is that by identifying, it draws attention to the fact that there are gay people who are also gamers, where the past perception of what a "gamer" is has been fairly narrow (white, male, nerdy, basement dwelling). AKA: Shining a spotlight on the fact that this is the wrong perception.

      That said, I'm not sure when there was a perception that "Gamers" weren't able to be gay - "Gamers" always being men, sure, but not that one.

    I like to think that most people will grow out of their specific prejudices in time, just takes A LOT longer for some.

    Thank you for your article. As I also pointed out in a separate article, a lot of gamers like to believe that homosexual people don't exist (unless they are female).

    I would like to offer some words of hope, where I come from, despite a significant and prevalent dogma of religion quoting the 'evilness' and 'wrongness' of homosexuality, I saw no sign of homophobia while living with the young adults who were target of such religious dogma = young *straight* Asian men happily bonding in friendly non-sexual ways that white males would never ever consider for fear of being branded 'gay'.

    A little hard to believe? Perhaps, but this is a completely different culture, social demographic and religion that we're talking about. Now if only the world knew more about these resistant young adults to popular anti-homosexual dogma/views/propaganda.

    Most of the gamers I have met have been incredibly understanding of people no matter where they come from, what gender or who they prefer to date. Unfortunately, a lot of people who play online think that Trash talk is all part of the fun and if they hurt someone's feelings, even better!
    I hope that more people realise that saying "gay" and "Jew" is not okay and never was and it doesn't make them any better then anyone else who plays games.
    Great article and good luck in your cause.

    If this is about banning offensive language, then this is about censorship. If this is about banning people who assert their opinion that being gay is wrong, then your just as bad as those who ban people who ban gays in the first place.

    Further more... any time you use any insult, you are condemning someone.
    Niggers = African decent, Fag = homosexuals, Nerds = smart people, Slow = Stupid and Emos = Emos. So what makes homosexuals so privileged compared to stupid people or emos?

      Censorship? No.

      Explaining that it's probably a good thing if you can manage to spend a day on the internet without screaming 'faggot' everywhere? Yes.

      People can say what they want, but I'd like to think being civil (not to mention an adult) means you can change your language when it's clearly causing harm.

        "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

        Censorship? yes...

        But how does ones language alter ones reality?

        I agree with you that pointing people towards civility is a good thing. But at what cost? If I told you that you're not allowed to tell people that your gay for the good of civility. Then surely you would argue with me how censorship is bad.

    I will say that when I'm drunk/drugged and playing games I am quite foul mouthed and I'm sure I've said the word faggot and worse alot. However my personal belief is that gay people deserve 100% equal rights including the right to marry and have children (adoption or surrogacy).

    So while I might be calling some guy a fucking faggot for spawn camping on bf3 at 3am on a Tuesday morning it really does not mean that I'm a homophobic bigot.

    Oh and it is obviously religions fault for all the hate, they used to burn homosexuals at the bottom of the heretic (i.e atheist) pyre. Every positive account of religious tolerance/understanding is sitting on 1000 records of violence and murder.

      Maybe you could make the effort to stop saying it?

        Beause we are all hypocritical, what insult should he use instead?

          None would be a good start.

            So you don't use insults? Ever? Oh wait, you just called someone a bigot and a child out of context :/... I think someone needs reevaluate their logic.

              *Rolls eyes* I'm sorry, did I ever say that I wasn't a hypocrite? You have no logic whatsoever!

              I'd also like to point out that neither "bigot" nor "child" are slurs, whereas words such as "faggot" have no other use in modern English than denigration. Seeing as you love logic so much, I hereby trump you.

              Actually, I didn't call him a child, as that was a statement of condition. You can't even get your condescending tone right, mate.

                "An insult (also called a slur, scoff, slight or putdown) is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is considered degrading and offensive. Insults (sometimes called "cracks" "remarks" or one-liners)[1] may be intentional or accidental. An example of the latter is a well-intended simple explanation, which in fact is superfluous, but is given due to underestimating the intelligence or knowledge of the other."
                - wikipedia, so handy today.

                Also, you dont need to say your hypocritical to be hypocritical. You merely have to tell one person one thing and then do another ;)

                Keep trying Vebi...

                  Hh, you're so full of it I'm surprised you can walk out the door.

                  That is an insult. Now we have that out of the way:

                  I never said I never used any insults. You assumed that I did (read the initial post, there was none), whereas I never made that statement. In a stunning display of ignorance, you then proceeded to lambast my simple suggestion without a shred of dignity. As for being a hypocrite, I never gave any order or any suggestion that it was to be followed. Instead, I answered your very poorly worded question, the answer to which was "no insult," whereas you assumed it was a personal attack. Now that I have made a personal attack, go ahead and condescend all you like if it makes you feel better.

                  Also, insult is different to slur (Oxford dictionary): whereas a slur is an "unfair word or remark designed to lower others' opinion of said person", an insult is designed to "incite offence of the person it is aimed at."

                  In closing, I will echo your petty remark: Keep trying.

                  Oops, also forgot to point out that you picked out one tiny bit of my presented argument and then flourished it as if it were the central point. You'd make a wonderful politician.

      You're still a bigot. You're also the cause of your own prejudices, unless you're a child.

    tl;dr

    Is this the same guy as last time? "Im a gamer and Im gay, so Im a gaymer! Im special, look at me, dont tread on me."

    I think we established last time the prejudice towards him had nothing to do with him being gay and everything to do with him being an attention seeking 'Generatrion Me' wanker.

      this.

      I'm all for it, but fuck me he comes across as a self important wank.

      Any comment that begins with "tl;dr" should automatically be discounted from a discussion.

      If you didn't read the damn article, don't comment on it. Only person that is coming across as a wanker is you.

    I honestly am at a loss here :S
    I am a heterosexual male. I have a few gay friends. Male and Female, and I'm generally the first to defend them if there's ever an issue,I also have pretty much nodded incessantly whenever the, 'Woman in games shouldn't just be sex symbols'... But seriously I don't get it??

    There's extremes for anything but offense can only be taken not given. I've played online a fair bit, and yeah, 3/10 times I think someones been called a faggot or a raging homo etc... But I have also played with some of my 'Gaymers' and I've called them a faggot like everyone else, and they've managed to make me cringe by one-uping us in the insults/ psyche outs etc and it's been funny.

    One of my mates DOES get offended though, so I pull back when he's playing. But that's just it., Sure this is SPECIFICALLY about 'Gaymers'. But nothing offends EVERYONE at once. I get being sensative to others feelings, but honestly... I don't give 2 shits if the way I act comes across as P.C... I'll treat it on a person to person basis... And if you don't like it... Well I aint changing ;)

      ** If I come across as NOT PC

      So, a person cannot intend to offend another? I cannot respond to someone, with acerbic malice, for the sole purpose of offending that person?
      That's a massive cop out. If a person gives no reason for another to offended, there's a high probability noone is going to be offended.

      How can you say that you're apathetic to people's perceptions of your words and actions, yet practically preclude that statement by proclaiming an almost precognitive ability at personal interaction?
      That statement folds down to 'I'll be a prick to people, unless I decide not to', which is quite at odds with your opening establishment that you're a worldly and open-minded person on issues of gender and sexuality equality.

      tl;dr Probably shouldn't undercut yourself when trying to make a statement.

        No, not at all... I dont discriminate, im an arsehole to everyone equally. Simply put, EACH person has a line... If every time some one gets upset the world decides what caused the reaction is not PC or whatever, it's not going to be a very free world for long...

    I love this scene from Louie. Really explores insults including the word faggot in a group of friends playing poker.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-55wC5dEnc

      That was actually linked to in the article.

    I saw the word "homophobia" in the warning and it triggered my depression.

    it is a pretty sad state of affairs when one has to openly advertise how he or she is different....in an attempt to be treated like everyone else.

    You changed my views. I can't abide anything that drives people to suicide (as reported on a site I believe you linked to). If gay kids are killing themselves, then the situation just obviously has to stop. I quote (if memory serves) a famous past US politition: "I disagree with everything you said. But I'll fight to the death for your right to say it". Let genuine philosophical arguments about gay love etc be made where appropriate; but not attacks! Just everyone treat everyone as people with decency!!

    It saddens me to see people hating on "gaymers" just because they want to band together and share a common interest. Isn't it enough that we subject people who are gay with bullying and exclusionism from birth? Why would you want to try and take this away from them too? I'm sure they would love to live in a world where there is no bigotry, but we don't live in that world yet. I think some of the commenters here need to take a good hard look at themselves.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now