Hey everyone, I was reading an article on Gamespot today about how Killzone 2 had sold 1 million copies when amidst all the stupid fanboy comments there was this one:
shade1978x
Posted Apr 17, 2009 6:44 pm ET
I think the problem with KZ2 is the recent study that came out that determined that 72% of those who purchased KZ2 were homosexuals, 28% of those having "civil partners". I don't want people misconstruing my message and thinking there's something hidden in there. I'm not infering anything, mind you. I'm just saying, I have no problem with civil unions or same-sex marriage. I think that if the large contigent of KZ2 owners want to live their lives that way, I think they should have the freedom to do so. There's NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. But, many people don't want to be associated with a game where the majority of owners are people who belong to a "controversial" sub-group of the culture.I think it's sad that, in this day and age, people just can't buy a game and play it without being looked down upon for their sexual preferences.
My first question is, is this one of the most irrelevant and offensive comments you've ever seen? I mean really, it completely unrelated to anything going on in the discussion. My second question is: Why are people so incredibly stupid and how do you deal with it? Now I know people say just ignore it, but people said that about Hitler too and look where that got us. I guess I'm really just here to vent my frustration but seriously what is everyone else's opinion on the matter?
Reading it i couldn't help but feel a slight tone of tongue in cheek, it may just be my imagination though
Deep.
I think this one about says it all.
Did you know JESUS plays Demigod?
EVERYONE should buy it now
I'm an atheist, too, but I never miss an opportunity to say Jesus was also jewish.
Speaking of Killzone 2, I don't care who plays it, but how can people like it ? It's slooooooooooooooow. When people say a game is realistic, they actually mean it's slow enough for a casual player to catch up. When they say it's team-oriented, they actually mean it's a deathmatch game where you don't shoot some targets. That's the sad truth - team games are more popular nowadays not because they're more tactical or anything. They're more forgiving, because attack can only come from 1 direction.
I used to dislike Quake 3, but now I'm eagerly waiting for release of linux Quake Live client. Quake 3 is a noble exception in the modern trend of slower and slower games.
Killzone 2 has to be one of most overrated games ever.
I and a friend of mine used to... hell, who am I kidding, we still do, just yell the word Jew randomly. When one of us heard it, we were required to respond. A bird call of sorts, if you will.
Some people would get upset. Funniest thing was, none of the people who got upset were Jewish.
In fact, my Jewish friend was one of those who brain rattled one of the touchy-fish (Touchy-Fish: 1. one who is lacking in humour or a sense thereof, 2. Oversensitive, hyporcritical moron) for yelling at us, telling the fella "It's a word. They aren't even saying anything about it! What, you have something against the word Jew? You don't think people should be allowed to say the word Jew? You racist bastard!"
W1nn@r.
That made me lol. Thank you.
Beautiful post, and right on the nose. All the Bible-thumping lunatics and mad scientists can fight and scream all they want; they can't escape the fact that rational people don't give a hoot in hell what they say.
Oh, and +1 Karma!
I used to date a lady pastry chef.
She was/is the most amazing talent, but what she will be most remembered for is her penis cake. She would bake a sheet cake, and embed in it a silicone representation of the male member, skewered at the base by a wooden dowel with a small handle.
When the bride to be leant down to blow out the candle of the single life, she would be showered with the white frosting of reality.
Good times.
What does "controversial" sub-group of the culture have to do with gaming?
I think the answer is pretty obvious.
I play whatever game I want.
End of story.
If any of you are at least half-seriously interested in how we've come to an age when even some gay folks will use "gay" as a semi-universal pejorative, you might find this NYTimes piece interesting. Boy-howdy, I wouldn't be a teenager again for all the assets in Warren Buffet's accounts.
seriously, why are we talking about this? I mean, why is the sexual preferences of anybody even being brought up. That's private business. If nobody brought it up, then there wouldn't be a sub-group. Everybody would have their sexual preferences and be happy (or not) about it without having to worry about what others thought.
If everybody obeyed the law, there would be no need for police. However, it is patently rediculous to assume that everyone will do the right thing, so don't assume they will.
Gee, even in HighSchool i was being laughed at for looking like a 2X4 (wood stud, don't ask it's a Quebec thingy with forest and spruce). Skinny, no superb biceps muscling their ways to the girls while running for THE winning touchdown in a football game. I can even remember the QB smile when he realized i cought and got the balls.
I've gained some healthy and athletic sharp weight since though.
Lesson being, don't judge anyone for what they are but for what they DO.
Have to correct you there: who you are IS what you do, and it has very little to do with how you look.
In terms of the law, I'm a staunch supporter of bedroom privacy; government has no business telling any assemblage of consenting adults what they can or can't do sexually. But as a student of society and a gay man born in the mid-'60s, I'm pretty much pissed off to read you saying "If nobody brought it up, then there wouldn't be a sub-group."
People are, have always been, and probably always will be obssessed with having basic information about the sexual status (tastes, availability, *and* activities) of other people, especially folks in our families and other close circles. Those of us with little or no heterosexual interests have *always been* a "sub-group." The real question is whether we're supposed to consider ourselves a dirty little secret or just another crowd among crowds. I vote for the latter.
Try thinking of it in Bizzarro terms--if you lived in a world where most people were gay but you were a breeder, wouldn't it piss you off to have strangers assume you were just like them? And on the practical side, when you have such a reduced pool of potential life/playmates, you need to put your cards on the table if you want the surrounding majority to help fix you up with someone. Even the creepy eHarmony people seem to have acknolwedged this, albeit with some 'help' from silly litigation.
Indeed. Just telling everyone to ignore something won't make it go away or be accepted by weveryone. It would be like somebody saying "ok, let's all just pretend that everyone in America is white." (which would probably get you in trouble for being racist.)
with cheesecake topping.
But it's true. The sub group is a creation of modern society. Period. It DID NOT exist in the thousands of years prior to our day and age.
I'm sorry, but if you think it did you are very sadly mistaken.
Sexual preference, now that's something else. That's always existed. Hell, look at ancient Greco-Roman stuffs if you want historical precedents. Basically ANY kind of organised military is going to have it.
But the "sub group"? No, that's an artificial creation. Homosexual Greeks would indulge their desires but still have a wife and kids and this was not only accepted but in many respects expected. No sub-group. That's something unique to our couple of generations and, in my opinion, will cease to exist in a few hundred years again. Sorry, but welcome to the reality of human existence. We are but animals.
You guys are hilarous. Some where else a guy calls fans for a game with dissappointing sales a bunch of fags, and a philosophical discussion on homosexuality pops out.
Isn't that a sign of the drive for intellectual advancement?
What, exactly, is wrong with that?
Why should everything be limited to the stupid and inane? To be honest, I love the stupid and inane, but I don't want everything to be about it.
Truth be told, i loved and divorced two different wives for a single reason - they both didn't want to play computer games with or against me.
Now my relationship(s) are based off a quick googgggllllling catalog, an IQ test, and at times... evidence of it all. Joystick handling is a result of that quest - i believe her.
Money drives me nuts, though.
This thread could be used as an example in defining stupid and inane. How do you figure you're advancing intellect here?
Maybe because homophobia is a serious problem in most (if not all) countries. Maybe because by ingaging in phiolosophical discussions people can learn to improve themselves. Maybe because uninformed people could read this thread and come away knowing a little more than they used to about life, tolerance, psychology, politics, or simple decency.
I haven't seen anyone call it a disease yet, but I guess you could call this educational. I'll stop making fun of you for a while.
The silly and inane can indeed have intended or accidental educational benefits. Whatever get's you thinking without direcly hurting someone else is fine in my book. Too silly or inane? Use your power to Ignore.
We're at loggerheads here because I was talking about the animal reality behind the "sub-group" and not the labels. I've more than a few times stood up to scoff people for saying things like Michelangelo was gay. Sure, he probably had little or no interest in sex with women and at least some in sex with men, but the modern gay cultures didn't start forming until the late 19th or early 20th, depending on the history you prefer to accept.
But just because we have different labels and social networks than existed in the past does nothing to alter the fact that some people have always been queer and some societies have been much nicer to us about it than others (e.g. the two-spirit traditions in some Native American societies). Your complaint, partly because you prefer the term "sexual preference," appears to be that modern interest group politics has given the new gay cultures a shred of power on which to build our own identities and communities. Tough shit, pluralism is the name of the game. I've said more or less the same to featherheaded queers who say things like "That Pat Robertson shouldn't be on TV."
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
