EA Responds To Hate Campaign From Homophobes


In response to a vile show of hatred, EA – the Worst Company In America – has made clear they are taking no notice of their recently being inundated with complaints about the portrayal of gay and bisexual characters in their games. GI.biz reports that the publisher has confirmed they’ve been on the receiving end of “several thousand” emails and letters protesting the inclusion of LGBT characters and relationship options. Because it’s 1950. Of course EA have, in slightly more polite terms, told these dismal hatemongers to fuck the fuck off.

Jeff Brown, EA’s VP of corporate communications told GI,

“Every one of EA’s games includes ESRB content descriptors so it’s hard to believe anyone is surprised by the content. This isn’t about protecting children, it’s about political harassment.”

The hatemail contains threats of boycotts if the company doesn’t remove same-sex relationships from the games, and also apparently proffer conspiracy theories that their inclusion is the result of campaigns from LGBT groups, as part of an attempt to warp the minds of tiny children.

These repressed individuals, likely taking out their own terror at being attracted to their vicar’s son, seem to be coming from various “family” orientated groups. The Florida Family Association, GI claims, is directly campaigning against EA, and a significant proportion of the letters and IPs carry Fla postmarks. Then there’s the Family Research Council, and possibly Focus On The Family. I’d link to them, but then I’d have to cut off my hands.

EA has yet to report if these people have also complained about black characters being allowed to ride up front in the Normandy.


  1. Mordsung says:

    Homosexuality: Animals did it for millions of years. Humans did it for the first quarter of a million years they were around. Then some guy from Nazareth dies and raises himself as a Lich… and look what happened.

    Just say no to undeath.

    • Blackcompany says:

      This might be the funniest thing I have ever read.


    • Xocrates says:

      Did the Lich actually ever say anything on the subject though?

      Pretty sure that this is the necrophiles fault.

      • gekitsu says:

        if i recall correctly, the lich made a point of “thou shalt be as nice a person as possible, both to thine self and everyone else.”

        so even if the lichs dad hated homosexuals (arguable evidence at best), being an ass towards them in the name of the lich is pretty off the mark.

        • TsunamiWombat says:

          The Lich never actually spoke on the subject of homosexuality, nor is the bible very specific about it when you get down to it. There are two places where it comes up – “Be Fruitful and Multiply”, some interpret this as procreation as a divine given commandment (hence homosexuality/pregnancy control such as condoms = sin), and “It is unclean for a man to lay with another man as a woman”. It was also unclean, at the time, to eat Pork. And many Jews were unclean, by necessity of their jobs (working with and slaughtering animals, for example), it was only the Pharisee’s (who get pretty unpopular in the NT) who obsessively remained clean. For everyone else there was a nice catholic-esque cycle of being unclean then offering re-compensation to god (in the form of burnt offerings) in order to purify ones-self and become right with god.

          Things the Lich actually did say? “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

          • DrGonzo says:

            You’re not a homophobe, so the Bible didn’t say anything about it. But if you were a homophobe the Bible would have said lots about it. That’s the big problem with it.

            Actually, it’s not. Fucking morons getting their morals and beliefs from a novel is the problem.

          • neolith says:


            There’s nothing wrong with getting your beliefs from a novel (well maybe stay away from the twilight books). It’s becoming a problem if you’re trying to impose your views on others afterwards.

          • Mad Hamish says:


            there’s nothing wrong with getting your morals from a tv show either or a sweet wrapper. Nothing wrong at all. It’s just silly and unnecessary in this day and age.

          • copernicus_phoenix says:

            You just have to ask WWKD : What Would Kangaxx Do?

            Although, do demiliche’s count?

          • Jackablade says:

            Hm. So ergo one cannot hate “fags” without also hating delicious, sinful bacon. That’s a pretty major sacrifice one has to take to maintain one’s prejudiced moral high-ground.

          • RegisteredUser says:

            Actually the old testament tells you to kill people that are gay or those that have sex with animals e.g..

            And I dare say that counts as “being in the bible”, regardless of how many people pish-posh the old testament(because it reflects the true do-or-die old spirit too honestly, I guess).

            “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”

            There really quite honestly is no defending the bible, its a book of rules(as in: keeping them under control/under the thumb of the ruling peepz) written for clueless people quite a long time ago.

          • cassus says:

            With all the bible’s “don’t eat this and that, unclean, etc” rules.. Makes me think the bible is locked down to a specific region. It talks about sheep, cows, mountain badgers and all sorts of animals… But never once mentions animals from regions like australia or any other continent they’d know little or nothing about when writing it.. It’s pretty sad that a book written by people that long ago still has any power what so ever these days. It’s not even that good of a book. It’s like reading collected scraps from dead authors. Stuff they never finished, short stories and so forth, released after their death as a service to fans. Makes you want to read the actual finished works of J. C. Biblewriter.

        • Belsameth says:

          This needs to be seen in this context! link to youtube.com
          <3 George Carlin, RIP and all that…

      • mrstu says:

        He didn’t… what he actually said was more along the lines of
        link to sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net

        • Ruffian says:

          hell of a guy, a true champion of “the truth” as it were. It always amazes me how good some comedians are at (I’m sure there’s a better way of phasing this) sort of explaining lofty concepts to the masses. humor is a pretty awesome thing.
          edit:meant as a reply to the carlin thing. not sure what happened.

    • RaveTurned says:

      Surely anti-faith rhetoric is just as discriminatory as anti-gay rhetoric? In which case it is just as unacceptable.

      Homophobia is the issue here. Lets not bring religion into it.

      • Crimsoneer says:

        Saying homophobia is bad while not being willing to criticise religion is like criticising the nazis while defending eugenics.

        Sorry, but if it was’t for various religious leaders and their imaginary sky friends, nobody would care about where you stuck your penis.

        • BAshment says:

          This is just the same as tarnishing all Muslims as being terrorist based on a certain groups actions. there are plenty of Christians who are fine with homosexuality no need to be bigoted and insult peoples religious beliefs.

          • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:


            Think twice, post once!

          • Dozer says:

            You ARE hearing from them – look up the page, note the article’s author: John Walker. Christian, games journalist, and tireless speaker-outer-against-offensive-bigotryer.

          • Kaira- says:

            We hear from individual persons. Never would we hear from those leading the faiths. And this is why organized religion is one of the biggest blights upon this earth.

          • sincarne says:

            Karia: far be it for me to disabuse you of your carefully considered opinions, but while he is sadly not for same-sex marriage, the Archbishop of Canterbury has publicly spoken in favour of antidiscrimination laws.

          • Dozer says:

            Depends how you define ‘leader’. John’s ‘led’ me, in the sense that I think and act differently based on ideas that have come from John, when I’ve read his words and listened to his podcast. The Church is not (universally) a command-and-control heirarchical structure, and not all its leaders stand at pulpits.

          • Deano2099 says:

            But there’s an easy fix for that. Just have all your religious leaders stand up and say that homosexuality is fine.

            I agree entirely that in the case of 95% of religions there’s no inherent, still applicable reason for homophobia. But it’s hard to accuse people of misrepresenting a religion when they’re just repeating what that religions representatives said the religion’s opinion was.

            People like Mordsung and I shouldn’t be criticising your religion, because you should have already done it yourself. You should have sorted this shit out. You shouldn’t stand for your own leaders misrepresenting you. But until you fix that, until you get things sorted at your end, people will keep judging you on stuff they said.

          • blackjackshelak says:

            @Deano2099 Well let me say that at least for my part, my religious leaders have done just that. The ELCA was actually split fairly recently over whether or not to allow homosexual ministers within the church. To add to and clarify that, those ministers are part same-sex couples, which I could also argue indicates the church’s view on marriage to some extent. Now there’s a section of what used to be the ELCA that said no, and they’re going by a different name now.

            The problem with organized religion in my view, is the “organized” part. That’s what leads to most of the issues, but the two ideas are unfortunately wed to one another. If there’s one thing I envy of atheists (and there may be more than one) it’s that there aren’t really that many versions of it. I’ve certainly never heard the term “atheistic denomination” anyway, and the fact that there’s so much separation within what is supposed to be a shared faith has always been troubling to me.

            That’s as much as I have to say on this. Didn’t really mean to go that long, but as usual, I couldn’t help myself. All I meant to do was point out an example and the difficulty of meeting your demand at the same time. I’ve no desire to derail this topic any further than it already has been.

        • TODD says:

          No, [fluffy flower friend – Ed]. A certain type of person has always found reasons to hate people different from himself. If homosexuality weren’t proscribed by any religion, he would start his own. Christian doctrine was used as an argument for both sides of a nigh-endless list of social issues, including equal rights for homosexuals. Blaming religion for the world’s ills is a shortsighted cop-out.

          • outoffeelinsobad says:

            Disagree. In-group morality can still exist without religion, yes, but in this reality it is mostly fueled and fomented by dogmas, religion, and idol worship. To say that blaming religion for in-group morality is short-sighted is itself naive and indicative of a lack of research. And to address the ills that religion deliberately, repeatedly creates is treatment of symptoms, not the disease.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Well, I agree. These people are not acting in the spirit of Christianity and do not represent the vast majority of lovely, respectful, nice, wonderful…. tolerant <- this word is wrong, most Christians do not see homosexuality as something to tolerate, but you get my meaning,

            In much the same way as the vast majority of muslims (and insert any other religion here) are lovely, respectful, nice wonderful etc people .

            While the OP did make me laugh, there was no need to drag religion into this, we all know these people who hate are going to hate something for some reason. It just happens to be homosexuality because they can't read their bibles properly.

          • outoffeelinsobad says:

            To say that bigotry is not in the spirit of Christianity is to say that they didn’t like the same parts of the book as you.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Ok, I challenge you – find as many bigoted passages as you can and I will find 10, no wait 100 times as many preaching the opposite.

          • Phantoon says:

            The problem isn’t the book. It’s the people that didn’t read it.

            As a bigot*, I’m offended that I’m lumped in with the anti-religious and the homophobic and racist. But you people just like to generalize because you don’t want to learn what I think. Well I’ve had enough of this! I’m taking back the word. You can’t say bigot now.

            And as a bigot, I can safely say EA is also full of bigots that view homosexual romances or romances in general as shallow. Also, their customers. I mean they view their customers as shallow, not that they are. Well, they could be, I’m no expert.

            But they definetly think we’re shallow if they can play this shell game of “NO PEOPLE THAT GOT MAD ABOUT THE ENDING AND HATE US NOW BECAUSE WE DIDN’T ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS ARE REALLY ALL JUST BIGOTS”. Because it’s garbage. Don’t allow it. Besides, homophobes will complain about anything you do. Didn’t keep you from bending like plastic spoons to their demands when they didn’t buy your game anyways. Now that it’s safe to have same gender romances, you’re pushing the bigot card? Really, EA? I guess nothing should be surprising after your complete lack of a response to fan outrage over the ending that didn’t resolve anything, and the quick justification by people to think that the ending couldn’t have been that bad. It’s like a victim of abuse here, in a loose metaphorical way. Like their ending. The loose bit, I mean. I could’ve made a joke about someone who works for EA’s mother, but that’d be crass. Like EA’s response to the ending of Mass Effect 3.

            *I hate anyone holding back human progress, which often can be people that fly a banner of religion. But these people are basically always stupid and greedy, and that doesn’t make everyone that’s religious stupid and greedy. If all the green balls in a playpit are green, it doesn’t make the others green. This isn’t that sort of OCD playpit. You’re a strange person for even thinking about this metaphor that much.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Hehe, very amusing! Doesn’t change the point that I will find 100 passages in the bible which tell you that you shouldn’t hate people for any reason,

            Now I’m a scientist. I hold a Masters degree in Physics from Southampton University and a doctorate in Biophysics from Portsmouth University and finally an honourable (given) degree from Cambridge in Medical Physics for my work on MRI resonance and the human brain.

            I spent 4 years working on string theory. Not to get into it, I was wrong. Completely wrong. By taking funding from those who made it available for me, I denied it to other scientists.

            In other words, I held back human progress.

            If you met me, say at a dinner party held by a mutual friend, or maybe chatting at a bar or whatever, between my string theory failure and any good work I’ve done – you’d probably get on with me pretty well – I’m an amiable person, I tend to get on with most people. We may even have interests in common and become friends.

            Yet the moment you found out that I was responsible for holding back human progress for 4 years, you would start to hate me?

            How would that hate manifest, the word itself and the fact you label yourself as bigot infers you would take action. Would you hurt me? Would you kill me? Would you belittle me and try to get as many people as possible to hate me too?

            That’s why bigotry is nothing to be proud of, next time you or someone you care about has their life saved due to a magnetic scan, just remember, your hatred may have made that diagnosis impossible.

            The bible may be many things, but one thing it gets right is it’s message that you should treat others with respect, no matter how different you are to them.

        • RaveTurned says:

          I’m perfectly willing to be critical of religion in an appropriate time and place, but the issue here is about homophobic discrimination. Also there’s a difference between being critical of a belief and completely misrepresenting it.

          Berating one type of discrimination while perpetuating another somewhat undermines the point that *all* types of discrimination should be discouraged.

          • Grygus says:

            It is not discrimination to note that several of the organizations engaged in public displays of this kind of bigotry are religious organizations. If that truth is uncomfortable for you, then perhaps you could get with your fellow religious people and expel these heretics from your ranks, or at the very least publicly denounce their position as antithetical to your entire philosophy. That doesn’t happen though, except on an individual basis, which is like fighting fire with spit; the deafening silence from the vast majority of religious leaders and organizations actually speaks volumes here.

          • HothMonster says:

            As long as the heads of the church still damn homosexuality than you are always going to have religion pulled into this. As far as I am aware the pope still says homosexuality is a sin and the church refuses to acknowledge gay marriage or do anything to support gay rights.

            Until the Pope or someone nearly as high up in the church says, “Hey lets act like Christians and stop hating people different then you. God officially doesn’t care what gender your partner is in a healthy, loving, monogamous, adult relationship,” you can not say that its just fringe groups and Christians as a whole don’t discriminate against homosexuality.

          • Karl says:

            I’m quoting the original article: “as it turns out, many of the letters have been coming from Florida, and it’s rather apparent based on this call to action for Star Wars that the Florida Family Association is directing a campaign against EA because of the same-sex relationship content.” and “The Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins, is also involved” Google them. Let’s not bring religion into it? Religion is a big part of this issue and it would be highly dishonest to ignore that.

          • dysphemism says:

            Hey, guys? link to en.wikipedia.org
            I’ve been reading on Wikipedia, get this, it turns out that religion? It encompasses more than Catholicism! Serious. No, I know it sounds crazy, but it says it in Wikipedia. There are actually other religious organizations and groups besides Catholics. And some of them, like the UUs, wholeheartedly support and advocate for equal rights and recognition for gay marriage under the law. And they’ve been doing it for years!
            I guess now that that’s cleared up, people will stop talking about how all religion is the devil. No? Oh, okay. Carry on then, I guess.

          • thebigJ_A says:

            UU isn’t really a religion. Many of my fellow atheists are members. It’s more of a pseudo-church that’s about community, rather than gods and such.

          • dysphemism says:

            You may want to write a letter to the UUA about that, because as of right now their website says: “Unitarian Universalism is a theologically diverse religion that encourages people to seek their own spiritual path.” I guess nobody’s been impolite enough to tell them they aren’t a real religion. (That said, I realize that UUism doesn’t carry an official dogma, so I know what you’re getting at. But hey, if people want to form a church based around democracy, freedom, and pluralism rather than White-Bearded God, as a society we’d sure be shooting ourselves in the foot telling them they aren’t a “real” religion.)

            Also, my real point was that folks are deriding “religion” as though it were one thing. It’s not. It’s a big world, with many belief systems; many, but by no means all of them, have a history of oppressing and marginalizing people based on sexual “purity.” But believing in God/god/gods has never required that. The culture is changing, and for the better. Progressive religious organizations are evolving in response. Less progressive orgs are digging in their heels (on this and a host of other issues), which has caused a decline in membership. What we’re seeing is that religion does shape culture, but the reverse is also true.

        • BillyIII says:

          I’d like to defend eugenics actually.
          According to wikipedia (yeah, i know…), eugenics is the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population”.

          Improving the genetic composition of a population doesn’t necessarily involve mass murder and racism/(anything)ism. I’d like our children to be healthier and smarter with each generation.

          EDIT: fixed typos :)

          • Hanban says:

            And how does one improve the genetic make up in a population? It’s a slippery slope.

          • Grygus says:

            You have not given the matter much thought, I take it.

            The first problem is to define, “improvement,” which necessarily means ranking some genetic traits as superior, and therefore any opposing traits as inferior. I’m sure you can see how this could cause problems in society, and we’re not even done defining our terms, let alone implementation.

          • BillyIII says:

            Sure, but it will be done eventually IMHO.
            Bruce Sterling’s Shapers used selection, Gattaka’s emploees were “fixed” during fertilization IIRC. There is a lot of ways this could be done without massacre.

          • slight says:


            I can’t beileve I’m going to get myself dragged into this discussion, already did once at the pub and regretted it.

            However… Perhaps we could agree that some hypothetical hereditary genetic condition that means you have a 50% chance of dying by the age of 5. I think that’s something we could probably agree we don’t want people to have. Now how you attempt to remove that condition is really the important question. Suppose there’s a treatment you can give the parents which would stop the condition being passed on to their children. That sounds ok to me.

            That would seem to fit both the definition quoted, and I would guess be in line with the sort of thing BillyIII might be talking about.

            Don’t get me wrong, I know what you’re saying, but I think there can be uncontroversial improvement to genetic makeup as well as the more worrying side of it.

          • J-Spoon says:

            Uh, Gattaca might not be the movie to use in your thesis about why eugenics is good.

          • TODD says:

            You should check out Stormfront.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            Technically most societies already invokes a very specific kind of eugenics, in that it’s considered taboo to boink your cousin/other family members. Higher proportion of debilitating hereditary disorders and all that.

            The continuing widespread acceptance of these taboos is pretty strong evidence that the majority of society views at least one implementation of eugenics as essentially benign. (Discussion of whether that’s truely believed or just indoctrination for another time)

            Just because most simple implementations have distinctly unpleasant implications, doesn’t mean society won’t accept -any- flirtations with the core concept.

          • lurkalisk says:

            Well, gene therapy qualifies as eugenics. If we can get that right, there are a huge number of things we could do to help humanity without getting all nazi-ish. A vast array of diseases could be eliminated or made irrelevant, for example. Or even just little improvements that make humans more resilient without removing any diversifying factors, etc…

        • deke913 says:

          Yes we would still care. Leaving religion out of it, just say “nature” sort of defined the parameters of sex.
          Men and women good. Men and men disease. How can it be seen any other way? If you’re just holding hands and cuddling then ignore this comment, otherwise eeeewwww. I could care less personally, as I have many gay friends, 2 of which just adopted a son and I know for a fact that boy is better off now. But don’t be ignorant and try to say it’s perfectly natural. Nature disagrees.

          • Salix says:

            Actually, nature entirely agrees. There are multiple examples all throughout the animal kingdom.

          • Grargh says:

            Er… nature doesn’t give a flying fuck about anything, ever. And since homosexuality obviously has never been sorted out by natural selection, it is a natural trait of life.

          • The Colonel says:

            Also you are in a great minority if you believe that human morality is and should be directed by observations of nature. Herbert Spencer might be a figure of interest to you.

          • destroy.all.monsters says:

            Saying that you’re not a homophobe because you know gay people is the same as saying you’re not racist because you “have black friends”.

            How, precisely, is being gay more likely to incur disease?

            And if your homophobic self has to say “it’s teh AIDS it’s all their fault” I have an entire southern continent to show you.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            In suport of all the other ones already stating it, and despite the very valid point of not needing to take moral cues from nature, homosexually is common in a huge number of mamlian species. In fact the percentage incidence of homosexuality in primates has been shown by a few studies to be remarkably similar to the incidence in humans. (Way to go by the way society, we’re now about sexually as developed as chimpanzees. Not seen any studies on homophobic violence in chimps, though I worry the numbers are similar there too.)

            There’s mounting evidence that homosexuallity in either sex is just one end of a range of natural variation in a cocktail of hormone levels (seriously simplified for brevity, and not yet conclusive) between individuals. If that’s sinful then it’s time to start persecuting people with hairy backs for all their “diseases” too.

          • lurkalisk says:

            I think it’s fair to describe homosexuality as naturally occurring, albeit somewhat anomalous.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            I think anomalous is a poor choice of word, there’s nothing inconsistant or abnormal about it. It’s just a consistant minority in a standard group with normal variation.

          • Sleepymatt says:

            “Men and women good. Men and men disease. How can it be seen any other way?”

            Plenty of heterosexual people were dying of syphilis for all the millenia before the advent of antibiotics only 60 years ago. Kinda blows a hole in your argument, eh?

          • lurkalisk says:

            Well, there is so far no indication that there is any genetic information geared toward homosexuality. So it’s entirely incidental. Not good or bad, just without distinct purpose. I guess if “anomalous” doesn’t sound happy enough, “statistical outlier” should suffice, or at least sound too emotionless to be argued with.

      • Zenicetus says:

        Homophobia can exist without religion, but it’s impossible to ignore religion as homophobia’s greatest organized enabler.

        • outoffeelinsobad says:


        • Ruffian says:

          exactly, the words I was looking for as well.

        • Foosnark says:

          Just don’t paint all religious people with the same brush. Plenty of religions don’t have anything to say about homosexuality beyond “carry on then” because they know that sex is not their business.

          Unfortunately people never hear about them… because they also know that government is not their business either, and they’re not ornery/obnoxious enough to be interesting to the media.

          But they do play computer games.

      • Deano2099 says:

        I 100% agree and back you in your strong condemnation of the campaign to remove Ashley’s religious views from ME3.

        Oh, wait.

        People are entitled to have nasty views or ones I disagree with, it’s when the campaign to have them removed from art that there’s a problem.

      • Zeewolf says:

        Religious beliefs is not something you’re born with. It’s your choice. Just like political beliefs. You should absolutely be held accountable if your religious beliefs are racist, sexist or just plain stupid. No matter if you believe in Santa Claus or Allah.

        • marlin says:

          That’s right – have a go at Santa Claus, why don’t you…


        • RaveTurned says:

          On this I agree completely. The thing is, it’s possible to have religious beliefs without being sexist, racist or homophobic (I’ll ignore “stupid” for now, as that’s a whole other discussion). Likewise it’s possible to be all three without any religious leanings at all.

          Given the above, going from an article about homophobic lobbying with almost no reference to religion in the first place to the first comment of “It’s all the fault of Zombie Jesus!” is a pretty large and illogical jump.

          • J-Spoon says:

            Ignoring religion’s contribution to homophobia seems to be grave myopia at best and willful disingenuousness at worst.

      • mrbeman says:

        Sure ok. Let me know when someone is born religious and wants to change but can’t, can’t get married because they’re religious, is attacked verbally for physically for daring to touch their spouse’s shoulder in public revealing them to be religious, beheaded in Africa for being religious, etc etc.

        I mean I agree that the sort of shrill I SHORE DO HATE THEM RELIGIONERS is tiresome and pointless, but it’s not equivalent discrimination by a long, long stretch of the imagination.

      • DrGonzo says:

        Homosexuality is not a choice or belief system. It’s fine to hate religion and religious people in the same way it’s ok to hate racists or fascists.

        • Phantoon says:

          Which is dumber, Gonzo? Religion, or the person that took the bait to make it a point bashing religion/defending religion rather than the actual point of EA disrespects its customers to such a degree rather than actually say anything they marginalize their angry fans as “homophobes” without pointing out to those fans that they’re being called this?

          It’s a shell game.

        • Grargh says:

          “Homosexuality is not a choice or belief system. It’s fine to hate religion and religious people in the same way it’s ok to hate racists or fascists.”

          …in that it’s never actually “fine to hate” people, as it doesn’t make things better and generally leads to The Dark Side.

          • Klaus says:

            The dark side is cool.

          • destroy.all.monsters says:

            I think the desire to vilify an oppressor is not only normal but natural.

          • kavika says:

            In the same way that violently beating the crap out of someone who wronged you is natural. Impulses are natural and you shouldn’t kick yourself for feeling them, but you are often better off without the consequences those impulses could lead you down. Continuing to think thoughts that perpetuate those emotions demonstrates a lack of emotional management ability. It also demonstrates an ignorance of the things your emotions are rallying against.

            Also, The Dark Side has cookies.

        • Very Real Talker says:


          brilliant intellectuals you guys are, really

          • ffordesoon says:

            Wow, you sure are a real talker!

            I mean, I always thought “real talk” meant actually stating an opinion and opening yourself up to criticism, but you’ve shown me that snidely critiquing the behavior of others from the sidelines while risking absolutely nothing yourself is the realest form of talk there is!

          • Ruffian says:

            @Very Real Talker
            You’re making fun of people making fun of religion. and with a retard joke to boot! Yes, you are much more mature and intellectual than those lowly religion haters.

        • dysphemism says:

          You know there are Christian homosexuals, right? Also: gay Christians!
          Knowing that, and looking at what you’ve written, you may see an irony.
          Jokes aside, I know you guys are railing against the “wrong” kind of religion; the dictatorial, repressive, regressive, denying rather than affirming kind. But, please, I beg of you: Be clear rather than cast stones at ALL religious seekers. God vs. Gay is not the binary at play here, and many in the gay community would, I know, be dismayed to see some of the militant anti-religion rhetoric that’s getting tossed around here “on their behalf.”

        • The Godzilla Hunter says:


          No, it is not OK to hate religions and religious people. Homophobic =/= religious. I was coming to comment on how these homophobes fill me with shame, even though I am a Catholic (I think homosexuality is a sin. But so is believing in a different religion, and I’m all for freedom of religion).

          But according to you, I am something that all people should hate, for some reason. After all, making broad generalizations about an entire group of people based on the actions of some, and then saying that it is totally OK to hate all of those people, is not bigotry at all (note here, how I am not saying it is wrong to hate homophobes).

          At this point, following your logic, I should say something about how all Atheists are hateful bigots, and we should all hate them. Luckily, I do not follow your logic.

      • ChromeBallz says:

        The problem is that religion is being abused and twisted to suit the homophobe’s needs.

        The true meaning of religion has been lost over the ages to people using it as means to get what they want. Sadly, this continues even to this day.

        • Phantoon says:

          “The true meaning of religion”

          I had to reread that multiple times to find out if you were for serious.

          Have you heard of the Crusades?

          Religion may be used for hate speech now, but it was used for war back then. Humanity is getting better, even if no one wants to admit it.

        • Droopy The Dog says:

          The irony of religion and it’s “true meaning” is that, (aside from all the major religions having something to say on thousands of disparate subjects, making “true meaning” an incredibly nebulous concept.) anyone able to discern the kernels of good intentions/sound advice buried in the rhetoric would likely be observant enough of life and society in general that they would have come to similar conclusions on their own.

          The only thing religion offers on top of that is the chance to put your faith in a higher power that by its own definition is unprovable for a future reward. Something directly at odds with the kind of psyche that understands the pragmaticism behind many of its other teachings in laying out a set of rules to build a more cohesive and cooperative society, but appealing to those who wouldn’t see the value of that with a dangling promise of eternal reward. So religion is only really helpful to people to don’t fully understand its intention.

          The unfortunate part is that for all those good intentions (albeit questionable implemention), by working with people’s ignorance it’s made itself a frighteningly effective tool for those with some understanding but a more selfish view to manipulate a vast number of people to their own desires.

        • Ruffian says:

          I understand what you’re trying to say Chrome. Though I can also completely understand the phrase “true meaning of religion” sounding outlandishly naive.

      • copernicus_phoenix says:

        Religious belief is a choice – people can, and do, change their minds.

        There is no evidence that sexuality is a choice. Quite the opposite – aversion therapy has no effect on it.

      • Consumatopia says:

        Surely anti-faith rhetoric is just as discriminatory as anti-gay rhetoric? In which case it is just as unacceptable.

        I think people are being unfair to Christianity here–I know lots of non-bigot Christians, they’re just not as noticeable on the Internet as Fundamentalists or New Atheists.

        But in general, no, not all “anti-faith rhetoric” is “discriminatory”, at least if “discriminatory” means “prejudiced” or “bigoted”. If someone points out that Scientology is a dangerous cult with ridiculous beliefs, that’s not “discriminatory”, that’s reality. If you have a belief system and other people believe that belief system is poorly reasoned, they have every right to point that out.

        Progress and freedom depend on testing our ideas against criticism. If it is “discrimination” to criticize beliefs, that it is discrimination to criticize bigotry and prejudice. There are evil religions out there that encourage their followers to hurt and oppress others. Freedom requires us to both point out their mistake and employ whatever force is necessary to make them leave others alone.

    • Morlock says:

      Actually homophobia is more an old testament than a new testament thing.

      • Zenicetus says:

        Right, it’s mostly an Old Testament carryover (not that there aren’t similar themes in some other religions). It’s probably rooted in tribal priorities, like “We must out-procreate that other tribe over the hill that we’re trying to kill, so knock off the funny stuff! Make babies for the tribe!”

      • Uglycat says:

        It’s actually something rooted in the ancient Near East culture.

      • meatshit says:

        In the OT, homosexuality is on the same level of bad as eating shellfish. Both are considered abominations, yet for some reason very few people start letter writing campaigns over depictions of crab consumption.

        • ResonanceCascade says:

          I feel that we should start a petition to Bethesda over their use of Crab Meat in the Elder Scrolls. It’s an abominable attempt at social engineering and a blatant promotion of the crab-eating agenda.

          • Dozer says:

            I don’t like eating shellfish. They’re filter feeders, so they get to absorb all the lovely pollutants in our modern seas. To wander off-topic, I see much of the law in the Old Testament as a “how to keep your culture intact and un-food-poisoned while living in a desert and surrounded by large empires for several centuries” how-to manual. It could be rewritten by Joel Spolsky but referring to source control and bug-tracking and Aaron chairs and used as a guide for software companies.

          • TsunamiWombat says:

            I largely agree, the behavior and eating laws were largely a survival guide (mixing dairy and meat, or eating pork or shellfish, was a good way to get food poisoning and die shitting yourself back in the day), while the laws reguarding isolation (forbidding Jews to intermarry, take on other religious faiths, or associate with Gentiles) were a method of maintaining culture identity in a region that was largely a melting pot. Also, the ancient Hebrew tribes were largely, Jewish Supremacists – they believed gentiles to be inferior, which is why it had to be punishment from god whenever they were defeated by them

          • JackShandy says:

            I did read part of the bible once (Impressive, huh), and I was a bit surprised to find page after page of detailed instructions on how to pitch your tent made of hair.

        • Electric Dragon says:

          I’m pretty sure Jesus sets aside the Jewish laws for Christians on that kind of thing (on further investigation it’s St Peter who says “Jesus came to me in a vision and it’s ok to eat whatever you want as long as it’s not blood”). The real person to blame is St Paul, whose epistles are where most of the (Christian) homophobia comes from – as far as I know the Gospels don’t actually mention homosexuality at all.

          • TsunamiWombat says:

            Correct, Paul was the only one who actually had anything to say about it. And even then it’s important to remember that Paul used to be a Pharisee before he converted. The whole thing about Gentiles ‘not engaging in sexually immoral behavior” was meant to be as a salve to the Jewish community when it was decided by the Apostilic council that one did not need to remain faithful to the Law in order to be saved – grace of god was the key. But the early Christian church was trying hard to court both the Gentiles and the much less enthusiastic Jewish community, and for the two to associate they had to sooth over the Jews who weren’t allowed to eat or commune with people who didn’t keep the law.

            Thus while it was decided Gentiles did not need to accept the law and become Jewish (for example, they did not need to be circumcised), to smooth things over they were expected to conform to general Jewish customs reguarding lifestyle (not eating strangled meat or blood, for example).

            In short, all politics.

      • Kadayi says:

        True that. Odd testament God not big on the forgiveness front much either iirc.

    • Wooly Wugga Wugga says:

      The bible is like a Rorschach Test. Those that see hatred fail the test.

    • Blackcompany says:

      In defense of the OP here, I think the whole Lich thing was just supposed to be an innocent joke, as opposed to an expression of hatred and bigotry.

      In which case it worked because it was, after all, pretty funny.

      I like cats. I love my cats like they’re family members. But if someone accused me of housing demon-spawned guardians of the underworld who are waiting to unlock the dead from ancient tombs so they can walk again, I’d probably laugh my ass off. Or walk away. Depending on the time of morning and how much coffee I’d had.

      But get offended? I hardly think so.

      Besides, every time I think of this remark, I keep seeing the Dragon Priest flying up from his coffin in Skyrim and I swear I almost lost my coffee through the nasal cavity the first time that image came to mind while reading this.

      So please, lets just treat it as the (damned funny) joke it was and let it go.

      And then I remembered what weekend it is. Oh good lord I think I might lose it!

      • DrGonzo says:

        Except if I had made that joke I would have meant it to offend Christians. It’s quite possible he wanted to. What’s wrong with that? They deserve a good offending.

        • Phantoon says:

          Because then the entire comments thread is about religion and not about how EA can’t call people bigots when their games deal with sexuality on such a shallow level.

          • ffordesoon says:

            Oh, give it a rest. I’m sorry you don’t care for Mass Effect 3. That doesn’t mean EA’s board of directors are all secret Klan members. It means they made a game you didn’t like with some silly romance scenes in it. Jennifer Aniston makes whole movies of nothing but silly romance scenes; would you call her a bigot?


        • Ruffian says:

          ohhh Dr. Gonzo, I hate to say it but I think we are of a like mind, sir. I had such a laugh just now.

    • Joshua Northey says:

      Personally I have a hard time believing anyone with critical thinking skills takes religion seriously. It is so obviously an obsolete method of coping with the world before we had much understanding of it. A crutch for frightened ignorant people. It is a viciously effective meme, I suppose that explains it. But anyone who took even one semester of logic or world history should be able to see how little the odds are it is true. Its more likely gremlins are real.

      The simplest cases are the following two: Ask a religious person why all the people born in Iran happen to be Muslims and all the people born in rural Alabama happen to be Christians and then ask them to explain why one group is just a prisoner of their culture but the other really sees the light. They won’t be able to do a good job. Hell I have argued with bishops who cannot do a good job.

      Then ask a religious person what they think of rain dancing, or sacrificing your enemies for the glory of the corn god so the crops grow? Then you just show them how praying to the invisible sky father is directly analogous to that, and hopefully they can connect the dots.

      Self identifying as a religious person is like self identifying as someone who hasn’t studied history and doesn’t really care if their most fundamental beliefs are true or not.

      • dysphemism says:

        “It is so obviously an obsolete method of coping with the world before we had much understanding of it.”
        As long as life is finite, religion won’t be obsolete. The whole “living and having to die” thing raises questions that still haven’t been adequately resolved for some people, it turns out. Coping with the impermanence of existence remains kind of an issue.

      • FunkyBadger3 says:

        I bet £10 Rowan Williams is smarter than you.

      • Ruffian says:

        I kind of agree, I too have a hard time understanding how anyone with the faculties of logic and reason could take most of the bible or even any of the big religious texts as literally as people still do in this day and age. That is not to say that there isn’t alot of good advice in them there pages, but I do think that people should read it, think about it, and decide for themselves like they would with anything else they read instead of just instantly accepting it all because it’s been hammered into your brain since you were born. I think god, if he’s real, would agree with me on this, why else would he have given you a brain that thinks for itself?

      • Klaus says:

        Greek Mythology was one of the few extremely enjoyable projects I did in school, which eventually laid the groundwork for me to sit down and reach the conclusion that none of that stuff makes sense. I thought it was simply a way for people to deal with death. “Oh, the baby died! A demon did it!”

        I also have huge issues with how human (i.e. petty and impulsive) most deities are, insects are more transcendent.

    • Thepointman says:

      Gotta love how people here bash religion as much as these groups are against homosexuality. it seems tolerance is just not something humans can be capable of these days. everyone else is wrong, I am right, so suck it. May as well be the creed of the world.

      That aside, I’ve always wondered why if people have such a problem with the content of games and movies, why not just keep your own kids from partaking in them? I never understood how everyone else should be robbed of the chance to dictate for themselves what is and isn’t appropriate..

        • Thepointman says:

          Not sure what that video has to do with anything, It’s penn doing what penn does best, taking the most extreme examples in an attempt to make a point. All I mentioned is what good would it do to say you’re for the rights of one group while venemously opposing another group of people who don’t all share the same views even.. Honestly just wondering how people figure it makes them better. Somehow these comments have veered away from what the article was even mentioning and has devolved into a hate rant all it’s own. I guess I don’t see how one is any better than the other.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            I fail to see all but the loosest correlation between a handful of comments disagreeing with the negative effects of religious teachings and the consistent, systematic campaign to restrict the rights of homosexuals and gross misrepresentation the groups mentioned in the article have engaged in.

            Attempting to paint them as the same thing is either because of a lack of understanding or a veiled attempt at misdirection.

          • Klaus says:

            It’s nothing more than a misguided attempt to appear open minded and fair. They’re operating under some pretense that all parties involved are equally guilty or perhaps that some balance can be achieved if everyone talks about it.

      • The Colonel says:

        Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” is also interesting on this subject

        link to marcuse.org

      • Ruffian says:

        @ Pointman
        I can see how all of this would seem pretty damned negative to some, but honestly IMO I think most of the “hate” comes from a general disdain for those who aren’t willing to think for themselves more than the actual individual religions or people themselves. I could be wrong tho, and just projecting my own personal feelings onto the rest of you guys. Who knows?
        Completely agree with you on the matter of people making their own choices.

        • The Godzilla Hunter says:

          Agreed. Most people are being civil, it’s just comments like “It’s fine to hate religion and religious people in the same way it’s ok to hate racists or fascists.” that can get people riled up.

    • Drayk says:

      That’s fucking brilliant… I have to write that down somewhere. I think i got my my new signature.

    • Mordsung says:

      I wasn’t mocking religion, guys.

      If you look up your many genus of undead, Lich is really the only one that fits the bill.

      He had a mind, so he wasn’t a zombie. There was no mention of him drinking blood, so he’s not a vampire (though one could use arguments about his transmogrification of wine into blood, but again that could be likely accomplished with a variety of 0th and 1st level spells.) He didn’t eat flesh, so that takes ghouls off the table. He was corporeal, so ghosts and wraiths aren’t it.

      The only thing left is a Lich. Being that he exhibited both arcane and divine spell casting ability, and his wounds were present after his resurrection, a Lich makes the most sense.

      It’s called science.

      • Droopy The Dog says:

        I love that the mythology of D&D is so detailed that you can acurately classify Jesus’ undead form, but the original source gives you 3 different options and just shrugs and goes “I’unno!”

        No wonder they were against D&D back in the 80’s, it knew too much!

      • jnk says:

        The problem with a lich is the lack of the phylactery and that he was still apparently fleshy.

        A mummy could work though. Since he was also embalmed. Unliving from Eberron could also work well, since they’re animated by positive energy I think.

        • Droopy The Dog says:

          The holy grail is his phylactery, Dan Brown eat your heart out!

    • HardcoreGamer12 says:

      QUOTE: *Homosexuality: Animals did it for millions of years. Humans did it for the first quarter of a million years they were around.* END QUOTE

      Just because something is being done since billions of years doesn’t mean its the right thing duh..
      people kill and steal from thousands of years ago why its not right to steal and kill then if your theory was correct?

      • ffordesoon says:

        I’m pretty sure there haven’t been a whole lot of people consenting to the theft of their property or to being killed, and theft and murder are harmful to others. Whereas homosexuality, absent any of the farcically hateful qualifiers I’m sure you’re about to impose, is a consensual act of love between two people, and hurts no one.

        On the “taking of other people’s legal belongings and using them for yourself” scale, homosexuality is roughly equivalent to recieving a gift from your spouse, not theft.

        But please, continue to propose outrageous false equivalencies with no basis in fact. I’m sure someone who calls himself HardcoreGamer12 is in no way worried about seeming “girly” and is therefore deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality due to his own insecurities, right? Nah, you’re just dropping knowledge, yeah?

        • jrodman says:

          Well, more to the point: theft with consent is impossible. There’s no such thing. It’s the lack of consent that makes it violent, and a crime.

          • jrodman says:

            To flesh this out.

            Borrowing stuff from a friend is to theft
            as gay sex is to rape.

            See how one of these are wrong, and some of these are fine?

            And that doesn’t even get into the whole part where homosexuality exists independently of sex.

      • Mordsung says:

        Theft and murder within one’s tribe has always been considered aberrant behaviour by both animals and human beings.

        Homosexual activity is considered completely normal in most significantly intelligent mammalian species, and was considered totally normal in human society as well for quite some time.

        The rules outlined in Leviticus are directly the result of being a nomadic culture living in a desert climate with primitive understandings of medicine and biology. You don’t eat pork and shell fish because those are meats easy to cook incorrectly. You don’t defecate within a certain distance of where you sleep due to sanitation. You do not engage in homosexual acts to ensure breeding levels are maintained during a period of exile. You sacrifice a turtle dove (pigeon) when menstruating and eat one to replenish iron in the blood (and yes, all these rules are in the same chapter as the “don’t be gay” rule). Don’t mark your flesh due to possible infection. etc etc.

        These rules have no use to us in this century. We can cook pork and shellfish right. Our population is growing quite quickly, more quickly than it probably should. We have medicine and a good understanding of biology so we can now mark our flesh without fear of death. We can poo in our own house because we invented plumbing.

        We no longer need any of the silly shit in that Lich’s spellbook.

    • v00d00m4n says:

      Orly? U watched all those animals for millions of years and can prove they really did it? Or you just so naive and stupid to trust homosexual propaganda (aka gay lobby, that tries so hard to make society consider minority of sick people as normal majority and even using GAYmes like Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 to succeed in this propaganda… trust, after gays would be considered as normal, despite they are have brain malfunction, pedophiles would start their pedo lobby next and would force your tolerastic ass to consider sex with little kids as normal thing, despite its same sick shit as sex of men with men) that creates not so fairy tales like this, or you just one of them and protecting your silly gay ass from penetration by dick of justice and just hate by normal people? Why? I though you gays likes to be penetrated XD

    • Lonewolfsach says:

      Hi there guys, real hot toppic this are you gay, are you strait, am I Christian, am I not.

      First of al, and this is just my way of lookin at it, you have the choice, so why lower yourself to other peoples standards and show them that you are just as big a nutter by shouting at them? Let others be
      and show them rather through your action and not your ranting that you are entitled to your say.

      Personally I don’t care if my character is gay or strait, but I still enjoy the game! Should we now bann all hetro people from playing on account of a few moron’s banging thier chests? Should hetro people give gay people the lip for standing up for what they believe in, no!

      But dissing other people’s beliefs makes you just as much of a looser as thei are if you think that you are better because you belive in something else.

  2. gwathdring says:

    “Every one of EA’s games includes ESRB content descriptors so it’s hard to believe anyone is surprised by the content. This isn’t about protecting children, it’s about political harassment.”

    Wow. I’m pretty sure that really IS corporate speak for “for fuck’s sake, people! Cut the crap!”

    • LionsPhil says:

      EA’s responses to this and the most-hated poll have been gold.

      INTERNETS: “Wah, you’re evil! We hate you! But we’re going to buy your games anyway.”
      EA: “Ok then! We’ll just keep driving this money train around. Toot toot!”

      HOMOPHOBES: “You’re satan! We, people outside of your demographic, are not going to buy your product that we wouldn’t have bought anyway!”
      EA: “Ok then! Maybe read the box next time. Bye now!”

      • westyfield says:

        Yeah, from my point of view EA have come out of this looking quite good. Both times they basically told the whiny kids/bigots to shove it. I like that.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        I think it’s a nice combo of

        Internet: “lol, we hate you”
        EA: “Look how good we are about the gays!”

        It’s a PR shell-game

      • DrGonzo says:

        It has been good. But I also have no doubt if it was more profitable to be homophobic they would be.

        • Nevard says:

          That’s easy enough to say but it’s hard to think of many circumstances where in the modern world it would be profitable to be homophobic
          Even games with no gay relationships in can’t really be described as homophobic, they might not contain any gay people but they aren’t condemning them either

      • Phantoon says:

        The homophobia thing and the company’s flippant remarks to its fans are intertwined. Why? Because EA is blowing the homophobia thing out of proportion to demonize their detractors, so they can distract from how they haven’t addressed their fans at all.

        The fact most of the comments in here are blabbering on about religion, another strawman for this issue, means EA’s PR machine can continue to disrespect everyone and get away with it. And as far as EA being voted worst company because of homophobia? Really? They pissed off a bunch of nerds with free time who have absolutely no reason to be anything other than vicious and they think it’s homophobia? No, it’s they made a game with a terrible ending and they hate them for that (and all EA’s other idiotic practices).

        So boo hoo, EA is the victim here. Right. Because they didn’t totally do anything to make a bunch of their fans angry at all. I actually can’t be any more sarcastic here. But playing the “THEY ARE BIGOTS” card is pretty funny, considering how shallow they deal with issues of race, gender, and oh, SEXUALITY.

        • Thants says:

          Did they actually suggest that the worst company thing was because of homophobia?

          At any rate, people who think that EA is the worst company in the country because they didn’t like the ending to one game deserve to have their opinion ignored.

          • Hoaxfish says:

            Well, their public response to the “worst company” verdict yesterday did put it’s pro-lgbt foot forward… which seems somewhat odd, unless they consider that literally one of the handful of things why they’re not “that bad”.

          • Thants says:

            Fair enough. I didn’t see that part.

  3. Verio says:

    I’ve read speculation elseware on the interwebs that this is bullshit and they actually aren’t getting some campaign of focused bigotry, and that in reality this is a marketing strategy to keep attention away from their other recent bad press…

    • gavintlgold says:

      I’d guess that it is real, but probably generally ignored, and they’re emphasizing it as a marketing strategy. There are always crazy people out there.

    • moooo566 says:

      Probably a bit of both. There was minor whining from morons about this before the ME3 ending thing and Worst company took off, but there’s no way they’re not blowing this up to make themselves seem like the good guys while distracting us from thinking they’re terrible people.

      • John Walker says:

        Yeah, it’s awful of them to actually be being good guys about something. Trying to make it look like they’re being good guys about something.

        • TillEulenspiegel says:

          Wait, why do people/companies deserve recognition for meeting the minimum standards of basic human decency?

          • John Walker says:

            They include LGBT characters in their games in the first place. I think that puts them a fair step ahead of the entire rest of the games industry.

          • Grygus says:

            Same reason you get an A for spelling everything correctly – most people cannot do it.

          • mr.lutze says:

            @John Walker
            Except they do it in quite disrespectful, immature way (especially with Anders, but ME3 isn’t much better). It looks like they only care luring in LGBT and other minorities without giving much though to actual content. It’s sad that people actually think this is the right way to handle serious matters. And that apply to all romances in Bioware games, including heterosexual relationships.

          • DK says:

            Not when their inclusion of such characters doesn’t go farther than “look at that gay guy, look at that gay girl, look at that slut alien”. Mass Effect is not and has never been progressive in any way whatsoever.

            It’s like calling it “Mature” because they have tits. Guess what – it’s the opposite of mature.

          • Simes says:

            DK, it seems to me like the presence of gay characters (in ME3, at least) is treated like it’s no big deal. Isn’t that exactly how it should be treated?

          • dethtoll says:

            No ‘A’ for effort then?

          • DK says:

            “DK, it seems to me like the presence of gay characters (in ME3, at least) is treated like it’s no big deal. Isn’t that exactly how it should be treated?”
            In the game? Yes. But touting the fact that they have this, and claiming a “look how great we are, we are so inclusionary” as Bioware/EA have done turns it into a farce.

        • rocketman71 says:

          What moooooooooo is saying is that perhaps they’re NOT getting thousands of emails, but they say they do so they can look like the good guys.

          Even if that’s true, they’ll never be the good guys after the terrible shitty ending they perpetrated unto ME3.

          • Premium User Badge

            Bluerps says:

            I think including LGBT characters in a mainstream game outweighs twenty minutes of bad writing.

          • DiamondDog says:

            *dons tinfoil hat*

            *takes off tinfoil hat and pushes it into eyeballs to distract from the petty stupidity of gamers*

          • Merus says:

            Did that ending kill your dog?

            I’m just saying, why exactly are you shocked that a video game has a bad ending. It’s not BioWare has an amazing track record here, their endings are usually passable at best.

          • Grygus says:

            @Merus I thought the endings for Baldur’s Gate, Knights of the Old Republic, and Dragon Age: Origins were very good. You can counter with… everything else, but so what? They’re clearly capable of decent endings, so expecting one isn’t completely unreasonable.

        • Deano2099 says:

          Also they’ve just caved to fan demands on something else already today (the ME3 ending). One could assume the groups pushing for this basically view it as essentially the same thing and would be buoyed by the earlier announcement. So now is a good time to point out that they’re not going to make a habit of it, especially in regard to hate-groups.

          • Grygus says:

            To cave in to fan demands would require the entire last hour of Mass Effect 3 be redone. They did not cave.

          • mpk says:

            Why the last hour?

            From the earth landing onwards? From the bit where you get to say goodbye to everyone? (I missed Tali and I’m quite upset by that).

            It was only the last 5-10 minutes that disappointed me. Didn’t “ruin the franchise” as some have said, but it did taint it somewhat.

    • woodsey says:

      Considering the responses on forums by a great number of people, as well as the number of public statements from ‘Family Values’ groups, I think it’s safe to say that no, they’re not making this up.

      • westyfield says:

        Yeah, just look at the forums (well, don’t, because most of the hate threads get deleted) and see how much shit EA/Bioware are getting for daring to acknowledge that gay people exist.

    • adonf says:

      I personally sent them a few hundred letters under various names, so I can confirm that it’s true.

    • Blackcompany says:

      You know, I could see this. I really could. On principle I won’t buy EA games. Their Day-One DLC and banning practices are horrendous, and boycott worthy. But mostly…I just don’t want to support these sorts of things.
      On the other hand…if ignorant groups like this are boycotting them…creates a nice dichotomy. Boycott us and risk being lumped in with these ignorami, Buy our games to spite these asshats and put up with our crap.
      Normally, I would rush home, sign up for Origin and buy every EA game I had ever wanted even a little bit just to spite groups like this. But on the other hand, its EA….which still makes me nervous.

      • MonkeyShines says:

        This is a marketing campaign by EA, and for some reason “respectable” (lol) gaming journalists are riding along with it. EA and Bioware want to be able to call anyone who disagrees with them homophobes. That way, they’re safe from any “harassment”. Fuck this gay earth.

        • westyfield says:

          You sound like a homophobe.

          • ResonanceCascade says:

            Translation: “People who call me out on my homophobic bullshit must be shills.”

        • bladedsmoke says:

          hahahaha keep on truckin’ in that weird little bubble there, pal.

        • John Walker says:

          This is just a thought, but when the people sending the letters are organised groups of homophobes, isn’t it possibly a little reasonable to call them homophobes?

    • Llewyn says:

      No, the FFA’s campaign seems to be depressingly genuine. And since I’m not worried about having to cut off John’s hands, here’s a link: link to floridafamily.org

      • lasikbear says:

        Yeah, all of these groups are hate groups, there is really no reason to doubt they did this.

        These are also the people who convinced advertisers to pull their ads from All-American Muslim because it was portraying Muslims as being normal people which they felt was dangerous and misleading.

      • DrScuttles says:

        If that first picture on the FFA’s site wasn’t hilarious enough, I scrolled down a little to see an apparent simulation of 2 children having been Brainwashed By Gay Star Wars to play as storm troopers and suddenly start embracing awkwardly.

      • DCSkippy says:

        It should probably be noted that the Florida Family Association is among other things:

        One guy who gets other people to submit complaints via various internet formats.
        Also the same group to push Lowes to remove their advertising from the television show “All American Muslim” (amazingly because it portrayed muslim americans as american and normal).

    • Dante says:

      Paranoia level – Soviet dictator

      • westyfield says:

        While Bioware work on the new ME3 ending, EA are busy Stalin for time.

    • Bhazor says:

      I’ll just leave this here
      link to joystiq.com

      • DiamondDog says:

        Damn, he’s right. Look at the extra promotion they’re getting for this game that’s coming out next week.

        The utter bastards.

  4. kastanok says:

    But but but how else will Lily Shepard and Liara have little blue children together?

    • Godwhacker says:

      It’s not gay if they’re an alien species made entirely of women. However, what the writer had in mind when he came up with that concept is definitely up for debate.

      • Groove says:

        It’s also not gay, if it’s in a three way.

        Or so I’ve heard.

  5. trjp says:

    I thought I understood god-botherers – I thought I understood their need to have a purpose and for their (and their loved-ones) deaths not to be THE END but…

    I don’t get this anti-Gay thing – the whole issue has little to do with religion really and everything to do with stupid societal values which need to be stamped-out.

    The basis of their hatred is one comment in the Old Testament which condemns “man laying with man” and at the same time forbids most shellfish but do we see them protesting against the presence of Prawns and Lobsters in video games?? No

    So I conclude they’re all bigotted, ignorant idiots and should be shot (in front of their families – obviously – OFCOM says that’s AOK).

    • ScubaMonster says:

      I also like how Christians ignore the direct teachings of Christ to not judge and love everyone even sinners, but yet they latch onto some obscure Old Testament verses as gospel.

      • Kaira- says:

        “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

        • HothMonster says:

          The LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the LORD. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.

          Leviticus 21: 17-23

          Leviticus is full of crazy hateful shit. Including the “If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman both commit an abomination. They must be put to death. Their blood is on their own heads.”
          20: 13

          If you took all the instructions in there to heart you would only respect straight land owning family men. Everyone else isn’t worth your or God’s time.

          “If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.”

    • John Walker says:

      I would totally be behind a ban on crustaceans in games.

      (And while people are making sweeping statements, I think I should point out that I’m a God-botherer.)

    • Johnny Lizard says:

      This game is nothing but hardcore prawn.

      • Dozer says:

        You’re casting pearls before swine. There’ll be no punning thread here!

    • Premium User Badge

      Bluerps says:

      Religion is just abused by these people to have some justification for their bigotry. It simply sounds better to say “The Bible says Homosexuality is bad” than “I hate faggots”.

  6. diamondmx says:

    I wish they’d tell them to “Fuck the fuck off”, not in kinder terms, in those exact words.

    • Smashbox says:

      It should be some boilerplate letter they send back to all of them

      Eat shit and die, hatemonger.

      Sincerely, EA

      • aircool says:

        And perhaps they should have the same attitude to people who disagree with their DRM?

  7. ScubaMonster says:

    It’s amazing how far we’ve come as a society, and yet how far we still have yet to go. All this anti-gay speech and rhetoric is just ridiculous. Watching the Republican presidential debates here in the US was just painful. When they were talking about gay marriage and how it goes against family values it made me think of some old white guys from the early 60’s talking about the negroes and how they shouldn’t be allowed to vote and should sit in the back of the bus.

    If you notice at these Tea Party conventions and conservative rallies there’s a big sea of old white people. I honestly think no meaningful change is ever going to come about until that generation passes on.

    • derbefrier says:

      Your right republicans need to let it go. There’s more important issues that need to ne confronted. If only these religious groups would put this energy into I dunno feeding and clothing The homeless or reigning in government spending perhaps the republicans could actually do some good. I am generally consevitive but this crap always reminds me why I am a libertarian.

      • Some_Guy says:

        much more interesting sentance when i read it as cloaning.

    • EOT says:

      They’re watching the world they know, the world they created and nurtured, the world the moulded to their own whims slip away and they’re scared. Scared that the power they once held (or think they held) is slipping through their fingers as social progress…eh…progresses.

      But I don’t want them to be scared, these baby-boom bigots, I want them to be terrified. Terrified of a new world that isn’t built upon the backs of what they would consider ‘lesser’ people emerges, too bad I think I’m living in just as much of a fantasy world as they are. Depressing really.

      Still, they’ll all be dead soon…lets hope they don’t make too much of a mess on the way out.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Unfortunately, the USA is a very big place, and the Tea Party types aren’t uniformly distributed. I live in the liberal Pacific Northwest, but the Republican bastions in the South, Southwest, and parts of the MidWest are in a different cultural universe. It’s not the old white folks holding picket signs at Tea Party rallies who are posting on game forums; it’s their kids and grandchildren raised in that environment. When Texas or Alabama passes a gay marriage rights bill, then you’ll know progress is being made.

      We’re talking about pockets in the USA where they still resent losing the Civil War. So this is going to take a while.

      On the other hand, the situation is less dire and depressing for LGBT rights than in some other parts of the world, like the Middle East or Africa. As nasty as some of the invective is in the USA on this issue, it’s still more about completing the process of equal rights, and not starting from scratch.

      • shizamon says:

        I’d just like to say (being born and raised in the southeast US) that while it does seem regions play a part, I think it’s more education versus ignorance. Mostly if your parents raise you to be open minded really. You can find rednecks in Michigan, in the city or country, though at times I share your opinions.

        A lot of times I think that the world is going in the direction of “Idiocracy”, which makes me not want to support social welfare programs, but I know that’s wrong too.

    • dethtoll says:

      I cannot in good conscience vote Republican anymore. It used to be they were a valid choice out of mostly bad choices; now they’re a cartoonish parody of themselves.

  8. sexyresults says:


  9. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    Well, EA does some things right. Maybe they aren’t the worst company after all.

  10. Risingson says:

    I’m fed up with homophobia. In this age we have internet, we have lots of people commenting, we know lots of things, but even then groups of individuals keep on bashing minorities because their existence is a threat for their “normality”.

  11. karthink says:

    A female shepard could have a liaison with Liara in the original Mass Effect. Where were these people back then?

    • Fiyenyaa says:

      On Fox news, complaining.
      Also there have been e-bigots complaining about The Gays in Bioware games since KoTOR made them all nervous when Ms. Cat-Lady fell for Ms. Player Character.

    • liquidsoap89 says:

      Fox news was all over that back then! They wouldn’t stop talking about lesbians and how horrible Mass Effect was.

    • Highstorm says:

      Does Fox News count?

      EDIT: I was so, unfashionably late to this party :(

    • Dante says:

      EA got it from both sides on that one. They got Fox News freaking out at lesbian sex (or any sex) being in a game, but they also got lambasted by gay rights groups because ‘swapping genetic material with a single gendered alien’ probably doesn’t really count as a gay relationship

      • Klaus says:

        Which is silly, because Liara for intents and purposes is a female.

        • RedViv says:

          Aye, that’s absolutely correct. They are a mono-gendered species, and thus it is female-on-female.

    • karthink says:

      I remember the Fox news coverage being about “Video game has explicit scenes showing sexual intercourse”. Guess I’ve forgotten.

  12. timespike says:

    As a person of faith myself, I find it strange that groups like this can laser-focus on the very subtle inclusion of homosexual relationships, but say nothing about the depictions of murder, genocide, torture, etc.

    These games are about choice. If you don’t like one of the options – that’s the point. If there’s only one choice, there IS no choice. For there to be a moral choice (however you personally define morality) there must be an immoral or less-moral choice, or you’re just watching a cut scene. If you fervently believe something is wrong (like the extermination of an entire race) or find something unappealing (like a romance with Jack, for example) then DON’T DO THAT IN THE GAME. That’s the whole point of having all these choices – so you can make meaningful ones.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    • jrodman says:

      Sure, it doesn’t make sense from a reasonable perspective. But this is all motivated by people who hate the idea of homosexuality being viewed as normative, and inclusion in mainstream media makes them angry because exposure does significantly influence views of something as normative.

      Essentially they’re mad that people in general might stop being upset about gays.

      • timespike says:

        They’re a bit late. ;) People in general stopped being upset about gays at least a decade ago.

        • jrodman says:

          Yes and no. Mainstream big-city culture has significantly moved on.

          However, California in 2008 voted to remove marriage rights from gay people. That’s a majority of one of the supposedly more progressive states in the US. Granted, the US is not The Netherlands, but still we have a fair ways to go.

          This “keep gays invisible” angle though, is decidedly historical. Everyone knows about them now.

    • Cryo says:

      As a person of faith myself, I find it strange that groups like this can laser-focus on the very subtle inclusion of homosexual relationships, but say nothing about the depictions of murder, genocide, torture, etc.

      But those other things they actually like.

      • timespike says:

        I think that me be painting with an overbroad brush. Not every anti-gay religious person is a mustache-twirling villain full of the foulest cruelty in every aspect of their life. It’s possible to be wrong about one thing without being wrong about everything and evil besides.

  13. djbriandamage says:

    Peter Molyneux put this conundrum in the best way I’ve heard yet.

    He said that that while making the original Fable it was possible to romance any person regardless of gender, and that everyone was intrinsically bisexual. If he wanted to incorporate heterosexuality it would involve imposing external restrictions on the love subroutines. Essentially, computers see heterosexuality as an error in love.

  14. Lord of the Fungi says:

    Nice PR trick. Obviously, all the bad press they got and the shittiest company nominations is a result of homophobic haters.

    • Risingson says:

      I think there is more to this than the nominations, as nearly every Bioware game has been bashed for having gay options.

    • grundus says:

      No, they got voted ‘the worst company in America’ by people who apparently value entertainment over the wellbeing of fellow humans and the planet itself. How anyone can even begin to consider an entertainment company as being the worst company anywhere is beyond me, unless they have a secret peasant-killing, river-polluting subsidiary operating in south east Asia that I don’t know about. Talk about first world problems.

      • Klaus says:

        Yep, because the voters missed a chance to cause some real change in the world. Think of all the missed opportunities created by EA taking first place in an internet poll.

        The poll might as well been on Gamefaqs.

      • Dozer says:

        The worst company for how they treat their own consumers. BP directly affected a very small fraction of its own consumers with the Gulf of Mexico spill – they’re probably pretty good at reliably handing over oil products in exchange for money in a predictable and reasonable manner. They don’t come to your house and prevent you from starting your car unless you’ve phoned your insurer to confirm their business hasn’t gone bankrupt and your cover’s still valid.

        • Grygus says:

          You have to produce documentation to prove that you’re not a thief in order to exit most Best Buy stores. I’ll take EA assuming I’m an idiot over a retailer who assumes I am actively criminal.

        • Simes says:

          Yes. It’s not like there were any banks kicking people out of their homes or anything.

          • diamondmx says:

            Yes, but homeless people don’t tend to vote on online polls.

            GG, BofA, gg.

  15. Skull says:

    Just take all the relationships out of their games, they’re unrealistic and cheesy and add nothing to the overall experience. It seems to be a service to the nerds who cant have a real life relationship.

    • Dante says:

      Well since my Shepard, the One True Shepard, is black, he spends plenty of time at the front of the ship.

    • Highstorm says:

      I’m largely with you on this one. I always found sex scenes to be awkward moments in movies, and watching 3D models bump into each other in the middle of saving the galaxy from evil death machines is even worse.

      They seem to want to include them as the ultimate “reward” of forming a romantic relationship between characters. Surely there’s more to love than sex though? How about your love sacrificing themselves to save you at some point in the game? Or hell, visa-versa for an early alternate ending?

      • shizamon says:

        Yes, that’s the kind of reward I want for devoting my life to my mate…bullet sponge

    • Klaus says:

      But they’re optional, so if you don’t want to see awkwardness, you don’t have to. No need to remove the entire thing because you don’t like it.

      • retropixl says:

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS GUY

        but seriously, if it’s optional I don’t see why we we can’t just stop there, go home and play. no need to have 9+ pages of comments on this whole shebang.

    • Dozer says:

      There was that awesome ZeroPunctuation episode where he complains about the American insistence of shoehorning in a rubbish romance sideplot into every film and videogame, and speculates on a parallel universe where they shoehorn in linedancing competitions instead.

      Thinking about it, I’ve not yet played any of these games which feature rendered sexytimes. My PC is too crap. And I’m too busy playing Space Station 13.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      From what I’ve seen this could easily be less of a complaint about homsexual options being in ME at all, but rather how badly they’re portrayed.

      Wasn’t it DA2 where basically the gay character was an aggressive flouncing nympho out to bum you, or something.

      • theleif says:

        If you by “aggressive flouncing nympho” mean some light flirting in one sentence, after which you could tell him not to do it again, then yeah, totally.

  16. N080D7 says:

    People need to grow the fuck up. How does two consenting same-sex adult’s relationship have ANY affect on your own life, let alone virtual relationships with AI? NONE. Like I said before, GROW UP. Only countries in which religion has heavy influence is homo/bi-sexual orientation frowned upon.

    • Risingson says:

      Heh, now I feel like trolling. It’s not “what they do”. It’s a kind of reasoning that consists of:

      – The excuse reason, “this is a bad example for our children. They should be normal, as us, and seeing gays could make them consider that option”.

      – The real reason: it affects my life as I don’t feel as sure as being the “normal” and “right” thing when there are so many variations around.

      Phobia, you know, fear.

    • retropixl says:

      Wow. That’s amazing. No one has every suggested that before. You’re a brilliant man/woman/dragon and you deserve commendation for that brilliant idea. /sorry-but-it’s-just-not-that-simple

      • Klaus says:

        Oh, it is that simple. But some people make the choice to make it as difficult as possible for whatever reason.

    • Cryo says:

      What, like USSR?

  17. zacharai says:

    Erm, in fact, black people don’t ride up front on the Normandy. They sit in the back – only Joker and EDI sit up front, and they’re pretty damn white. Even earth-tones (or whatever-color-Grunt-was) had to sit in the cargo area.

    Space racism is rampant.

    • Keymonk says:


    • westyfield says:

      What about Jacob? He ate a rocket in my ME2 but I’m pretty sure he was up on the bridge beforehand, might be in ME3 as well.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Anderson was the original commander of the Normandy in ME1, before handing it over to Shepard. And he’s unambiguously black (and voiced by a black actor).

      • Mopo says:

        Not correct. Anderson, like every human at that time was of mixed herritage in ME1 and did not belong to a specific ‘race’. They retconed all of this in ME2 and ME3 though…

  18. tyrsius says:

    Christian homophobic conspiracy theorists: is there a more deluded, ignorant group in America? Good on EA for giving them a polite, not-so-subtle verbal finger.

  19. Jimbo says:

    They should tell their marketing department how much they don’t care.

  20. Gap Gen says:

    Of course social conservatives are desperate. They can smell their deaths, and the sound they’ll make rattling their cages will serve as a warning to the rest.

  21. Deano2099 says:

    I’d quite like them to actually released a $30 DLC that removed homosexual relations from the game, and give half the money to a gay-rights charity. Then watch as the internet exploded.

  22. UnravThreads says:

    This is coming from EA, who hired outspoken and rather active homophobe Orson Scott Card to write a comic series based on Dragon Age.

    Sorry, what? EA lecturing others on LGBT issues? Snort. Maybe when they finally do them properly, they’ll have a soapbox to stand on.

    • RedViv says:

      So how is it “proper” then? I don’t feel discriminated and I like the options I am shown in Bioware’s games, should I impose my preferences on my female characters.
      Seriously, in the midst of typical Bioware-y writing, the depiction of any kind of preference is very much all right. They are not the subtle kind of writers.

      • UnravThreads says:

        By stop bi-washing everything. It’s a joke.

        Yeah, they have LGB characters, but they need to stop with the goddamn bi-washing.

        • RedViv says:

          I have no idea what bi-washing even means. Making most homosexuals bi? That was the one thing I would acknowledge as bad. They tried to argue that most characters are really just interested in whatever gender Hawke has, and indeed some lines of dialogue were altered to imply this, but it all falls apart when we consider Anders, who was very much implied to be a flirty kind of bisexual in Awakening. In DA2, he or whatever this new guy is, that pretty much destroys him as a character.

          Writers need time, RPGs need writers, blabla, EA at least learned their lesson with this game. Hopefully.

          • UnravThreads says:

            That’s basically it, but I think it goes further. Most love interests in BioWare games are bisexual. There’s very few truly gay characters, the most prominent of which being Juhani.

            From KotOR.

  23. MonkeyShines says:

    Are you people serious? Do you actually believe this? This is a marketing ploy from EA. Noone hates Mass Effect 3 for gay romances, although characters based around their sexual preferences is atrocious. This is just EA trying to divert attention from their own disgusting businesses. Are you actually siding with EA. How much do they pay you for this? Absolutely disgusting. I cannot believe that this post wasn’t satirical. i’m sorry if this seems a bit disjointed but I’m teeming with rage right now. You actually believe EA? Fuck you, you’re not gamers, you’re paid shills.

    • mrbeman says:

      Hi dude?
      Do you remember the “you should only make games for straight men” post to their forums? Have you ever seen the comment threads on the most vaguely queer thing outside of the few tiny enclaves of decency on the internet? Do you have any idea how many comments the RPS people are going to be deleting from this thread?

      You are seriously deluded if you think they’re not getting hatemail for making annnnnnnnnnnnnnny sort of a stand for equality.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      any evidence to back your tin foil hat?

      thought so.

    • Unaco says:

      No… It’s very real.

      link to floridafamily.org

    • Highstorm says:

      Woah there, turbo. I’m pretty sure people are siding with non-homophobic, rationale human beings. It has little to do with EA. Though I would love to see your evidence that the whole thing is a sham.

      • Hanban says:

        With the right amount of blind hatred anything can be true!

      • Rinox says:

        “Noone hates Mass Effect 3 for gay romances”

        I think you may want to browe the ME3 metacritic user comments for these ‘ghost homophobes’.

        (was @ OP)

    • Eddy9000 says:

      How about whatever EA’s motives, they are including LGBT characters in game and standing behind their position. A position that has attracted plenty of stick from hateful anti-gay idiots not least on this website’s forum in the past, a position that risks loss of sales through promoting equality for a marginalised group, a position that many other games companies are too afraid to take.

      Also although I hate day one DLC, shoddy trilogy endings and always on copy protection, I tihnk there are bigger issues than these in the world, and the right of people not to be discriminated against based on their ethnicity, gender and sexuality is one of them.

      So fuck you right back, have a little think next time you decide to type something.

    • yourgrandma says:

      It’s nothing but a quick cash in on controversy. EA absolutely loves articles like these as free advertising. Capcom pulled the same bullshit when they change the sexuality of one of it’s fighters for the american release of their game. Do you accentually think EA cares about progress of society and acceptance of the gay movement? HAHAHAAHAHAA

      • John Walker says:

        You realise that EA is made of people, right? It’s not a giant malevolent cube somewhere under the Earth, chewing on the corpses of infants. I’m pretty sure there are people at EA who care very much about the matter, and perhaps those who are ambivalent, maybe even a few who are homophobes themselves. Tsk, people, eh?

    • John Walker says:

      Yes, you’re right. I have to confess it all. EA contacted me this afternoon and said,

      “Hi, John,

      What we want from you today is one post in which you call us “dicks”, and point out how we’re screwing customers, and need to start listening to consumers and understand why they’re so loathed, and then another one mentioning that we’re getting lots of hatemail from bigots. We’ll pay you $4.50 for the pair.


    • no says:

      I’m sure a number of people are angry with Bioware/EA for including same-sex relationships and LGBT characters. But there’s also a huge number of people upset with them over the low-quality content of their games and poor attitudes regarding their customers. You would be deluded to “tin hat” proportions to think that EA isn’t going to start lumping the two together publicly as the damage control rolls out from the results of the poll.

  24. fart says:

    Does anyone else remember the good old days of video games when it was just about getting a high score or beating the next level instead of this soap-opera relationship drama garbage that gets forced into any game featuring a story more substantial than a paragraph?

    I’m not homophobic, I don’t care if my version of Shepherd can get all man on man with Garrus, same as I don’t care if he can get all man on woman with Miranda. I just don’t understand why my sci-fi space game HAD to go all Melrose Place or whatever the hell before wrapping up with the most HR Giger / Iron Maiden album cover ever.

  25. castorp says:

    John Walker, you are cool!

    • westyfield says:

      Yeah, I think it’s important to note how nice it is that this is getting written about. Haters surely are incoming, but before we’re drowned out by childish accusations of your corruption, I’d like to join castorp in saying that you are ok by me, John Walker. Keep up the good work!

      • no says:

        What you and many other commentors here are doing is the equivalent of simply closing your ears and shouting “BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN’T HEAR YOU LOL HOMOPHOBES ENTITLEMENT ETC”… that isn’t childish, though?

        • westyfield says:

          Uh, where exactly am I closing my ears? All I was doing was saying something nice to Walker – most other comments directed at him are accusing him of being in EA’s pocket. Thought it’d be nice to give some support.

        • jrodman says:

          This joke didn’t really hit the mark.

        • John Walker says:

          Being nice to me is childish now? Man! : (

  26. Ultra-Humanite says:

    “These repressed individuals, likely taking out their own terror at being attracted to their vicar’s son…”

    It’d be nice to think that instead of face the reality that a large swath of humanity is fueled by ignorance and hate.

    • John Walker says:

      I’m not sure they’re mutually exclusive.

      (And I’m not convinced I avoided mentioning the hate aspect in the post!)

  27. mrbeman says:

    Personally I thought the EA IS WORST COMPANY thing was just… crazy insane in the first place. They make games, y’all.

    Koch Industries?

    There are plenty of waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more evil companies in the U.S. and in the world. EA has some bad corporate culture and poor attitudes with regards to copyright, ok, but they’re not killing people. Get a grip.

    • no says:

      You missed the whole point of that poll and its subsequent result. If any of those other companies had won (as BofA has done for, what, the past couple of years?), nothing would’ve changed. They wouldn’t have cared. But the fact that a gaming developer/company won out over them this year is undeniably embarrassing, and representative of the distaste the gaming community feels toward EA’s awful business practice and products. People are riled up.

      • DiamondDog says:

        It’s the internet! People, and especially gamers, are ALWAYS riled up about something. Shit, half the time we have to jump on the smallest thing just have something to whine about in the first place.

  28. Radiant says:

    I’m not going to lie.
    I spent a good few minutes wondering which videogame LGBT was an acronym for.

    • RedViv says:

      London’s Grand Bell Theft, of course. An educational game, with the only goal to tell people that the tower is not called Big Ben.

      • Radiant says:

        Looks Good; Bit Tight.

        A game about shopping with your family.

    • Enikuo says:

      Leveling the Godless Bear Threat – A PC strategy game that simulates the real social and environmental impact of bears over the next 200 years. From Red Redemption and the Colbert Nation.

      • RedViv says:

        I would actually consider buying this. Anything for the God-Emperor of Trolls.

    • Demonbooker says:

      Look! Giant Bouncy Tahtahs! A point and click adventure from the minds of Ron Jeremy and Seymore Butts.

      • Enikuo says:

        A point and click… and click, and click, and click… adventure

    • theleif says:

      Large Gun, Big Tits.
      I can’t explain the game without ruining the plot.

    • JackShandy says:

      LGBT always sounds too much like a sandwich to me.

      I could go for a LGTB right now.

  29. Bitrayahl says:

    The Earth-shattering ignorance displayed In the comments on this article with regards to religion, homosexuality, various news organizations, and other topics(from both sides of issues) is just plain depressing.


  30. Soon says:

    Nothing brings a family together like hating gay people.

  31. Sentient Waffle says:


    Good idea EA.

  32. Shazbut says:

    Whether you hate hatred or you hate gay people, it’s all the same.

    Just try to understand all parties and see what it does to you and to everything.

  33. Klaus says:

    But where does Joker’s relationship with EDI fit it?

    • RedViv says:

      “Toys and d..:”

      Uh, where in what now?

    • Zenicetus says:

      The Bible couldn’t anticipate teh sexy AI, but it does say something about “spilling your seed.” So, knock it off, Joker.

  34. MrUnimport says:



  35. Mpplayer1 says:

    You know, since MGS4, I think that “It’s about respecting the will of others and believing in your own.”

    And also this:

  36. Uthred says:

    The majority of these comments would be hilarious if they werent so sad. “Oh it sure is silly to be biggoted and hate people for stupid reasons. Also, everyone with any religious beliefs/non atheiest is a dumb ignorant misguided fuck”. Physician heal thyself.

    It’s also sad to see that some people actually belief that this hatred is spawned by one passage in one religious text, really, how naieve or ignorant can you be? The root of this fear is fear of the other, the religious context provides a useful mental smokescreen so these people dont have to confront their own small minded fears, its not the cause of it. To think otherwise is laughably misguided. I mean theres even people out there who are homophobic and are non-christian or even…atheists! *gasp* I know, it doesnt make sense to me either, its almost as if people hate things without religion been involved, madness!

    • colinmarc says:

      And you’ve found a way to feel superior to both!

    • jrodman says:

      To downplay the role of religion in perpetuating homophobia is to speak in ignorance.

      • Uthred says:

        Yes, clearly by saying that it wasnt the only source of homophobia I have downplayed it, Ive learned my lesson kind anonymous internet user

        • jrodman says:

          1 – by your choice of projection, yes you did.
          2 – I’m not anonymous.

  37. Max.I.Candy says:

    surely this has been going on since ME1?

    • Klaus says:

      No, because the first game had a quasi-lesbian romance. This one features an actual male romance. And as we all know, male homosexuality is icky and gross.


      • Eddy9000 says:

        couldn’t Man-shep have a relationship with Kaidan in the first one?

        • RedViv says:

          Nope. That has been opened up in ME3. Not that many people would notice, given how most would likely sacrifice him only because they couldn’t kill Carth back in the day. Or because he is soooo boring.

        • Klaus says:

          Actually I think there were voice files that indicated a male-male relationship was in the works. But in the finished game, no, Kaidan was for FemShep only.

          • westyfield says:

            Male-male (Kaidan) or female-female (Ash) files are in the original game, but they weren’t in the final build. Cleverer people than I have jury-rigged the game to put them back in, videos are easily available on Youtube.

          • RedViv says:

            I still wait for proof that this ever existed. The only material I ever saw was some kind of edited video on YT, which had dialogue for Kaidan from FemShep alternating with the normal dialogue during an Ash x ManShep romance.

            Point us towards the real proof, if you can.

      • westyfield says:

        Yep. OP forgot the first rule of homophobia. Two sexy ladies getting it on = hot. Two sexy men getting it on = an abomination.

        /facetious… or is it?

  38. AltF4 says:

    Is finding homosexuality disgusting bad?

    • Mpplayer1 says:

      You know, I hate onions. I don’t hate people that eat onions.

      • AltF4 says:

        So you hate onions but not people who stink of them when they open their mouth?

        • Mpplayer1 says:

          If they don’t breath right in my face

          • AltF4 says:

            But you know eventually they will if social conventions allow; mint scented people have been doing it all the time.

          • Klaus says:

            If everyone could keep their stench out of my face that would be super, thanks.

          • Mpplayer1 says:

            So do smokers. I can only politely ask to stop doing it in a way that affects me. If it don’t, I don’t really care.

            Sorry if I write something wrong, English is not my “official” language.

          • JackShandy says:

            Allowing Onion-eaters in will destroy the entire institution of non-onion eating!

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      The answer is YES.

      By the way, a lot of people (many of them heterosexual) also find heterosexuality disgusting. That is also bad.

    • westyfield says:

      Depends in what way. Finding the thought of a gay man putting his thing in your rear-thing disgusting – not a problem. I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea myself.
      Finding the thought of two loving, consenting men taking it in turns to safely put their things in each other’s things disgusting – problem.

    • Chelicerate says:

      Very probably, though not in all cases. Do you advocate that those who are homosexual should have fewer rights than those who are heterosexual?

      Because heterosexuality is pretty gross to me. But I wouldn’t want to limit straight couples in any way.

    • DXN says:

      Put it this way, you’d probably be better off if you worked past the issue and it no longer bothered you. It would make it much easier to do the important thing, which is to treat everyone well and equally regardless of your personal reaction to the thought of them having sex.

    • Tim Ward says:

      It depends on whose problem you think that is, really.

  39. aircool says:

    Everyone has the right to an opinion whether you agree with it or not. Calling someone repressed for not agreeing with homosexuality is just as bad as being homophobic, as is referencing a religious background. Also, homophobic and not agreeing with homosexuality are two different things. The word homophobia is used far too often and seems to have lost its true meaning.

    Whilst it is a worthwhile story, I thought RPS were a bit more level headed. All because you agree/don’t agree with something doesn’t make you right or wrong.

    You wouldn’t support any homophobic comments, yet it’s ok to damn religion, americans and anyone else who thinks differently to yourself. I suggest you censor this article in the same way you would a homophobic or racist article.

    Like I said, worthwhile story, but executed in the manner of an ignorant, coffee shop intellectual.

    • RedViv says:

      Tolerance is a good thing, as long it’s not for the intolerant. Such is the paradox of freedom.

      • Klaus says:

        Exactly, people keep making the mistake in thinking that tolerance of bigotry somehow makes them enlightened or some nonsense.

        No, I don’t have to respect anyone’s views on their dislike of whatever group they arbitrarily dislike.

    • Eddy9000 says:


      Don’t argue that everyone has the right to an opinion and then argue that RPS should change theirs to suit yours.

      Also criticising people for discriminating against gay people is simply not the same as criticising people for being gay is it now? Have a little think about it. One is criticising people who marginalise a group of people, one is marginalising a group of people. Want to guess which one spreads the most hatred and makes the world a worse place?

      And can you point to me where religion and/or America are criticised in this article? Didn’t think so. Sorry that you feel put out because your hateful little views have been challenged, I’ll let you get back to defending your right to be a prick.

      • aircool says:

        What hateful little views? All I’ve said is that if you respect someone’s outlook on life that you agree with, you should also respect people for having an opposite viewpoint, even if you find it risible, repulsive or just plain stupid.

        Hatred comes from thinking that you are right and someone else is wrong. I realise the irony of this being my viewpoint, but at least I’m able to respect the views of people on both sides, whether I agree with them or not. I’m just pointing out the lashings of double standards, pots and kettle’s in the article and thread.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          Tolerating hatred breeds hatred. If you do not think homophobia is wrong then you are permitting it , accepting it and aligned with it. Someone who wished for gay people to have the same rights as breeders would not suggest that discriminating against gay people is the same as discriminating against those who discriminate against them. You are arguing for voices of hatred to be given the same platform as those for equality, and I think these are hateful little views.

          Please tell me why on earth I should respect the views of people that wish hatred on others rather than fighting them?

          • retropixl says:

            I think you’re completely ignoring what he/she was trying to point out.

            “Tolerating hatred breeds hatred.”

            You’re implying a false dichotomy. Not everyone who isn’t homosexual hates homosexuals. Not everyone who isn’t homosexual is “tolerating hatred”.

            So just because I see two men going at it and I don’t get hard that makes me a homophobic bigot?

            Way to “tolerate and accept”…

          • Eddy9000 says:

            Nah retro, I think you don’t understand what he’s saying, or what I am saying. He’s saying that people who are homophobic should have their views respected because marginalising people with bigoted views is bigotry in itself, I’m saying that respecting homophobia allows it and aligns you with it, not making gay rights your cause is one thing, saying that people are wrong to stand up to homophobia is another. Not anything at all to do with calling people that don’t get erections over gay sex homophobic, that just makes them straight. Or in denial. You seem very keen to tell me that gay sex doesn’t make you hard by the way, just sayin’.

        • Chelicerate says:

          Yeah, no, you’re not a good person because you ‘respect both sides’. Hate should not be respected. You’re enabling those who hate others, those who are organizing boycotts, starting letter-writing campaigns, and who have known to support and push laws that limit the freedoms of others.

          • aircool says:

            But you hate the homophobes, and that’s all right? It’s ok to hate someone because they disagree with you?

            Double standards.

          • aircool says:

            Also, I never said I was a good or bad person. Being good or bad is incredibly subjective. Homosexuality tends to be frowned upon in the Jewish faith, but that’s no reason to exterminate six million jews (including distant relatives of mine) is it.

            Things aren’t so black and white, especially morality.

          • Chelicerate says:

            Clearly, because I don’t support discriminating based on sexual preference, I want to kill six million jews. Wow, okay, yeah. Let’s go with that.

            It is not a double standard to hate people who are in support of infringing on other people’s freedoms because of that hate.

          • Klaus says:

            Homophobes are homophobes by choice. There’s also the fact that these people are actively trying to suppress others.

    • John Walker says:


      A couple of things. Firstly, I’m a proper actual church-going Christian, and in no way “damn religion”, so you’ve invented that bit. And I don’t think I expressed any criticism of America.

      Secondly, if people want to be homophobic in their own bedrooms, not afflicting it upon anyone else, then they can get on with that. When they started letter-writing campaigns trying to have gay content removed from games, at that point I believe they’ve invited comment.

      This was a campaign organised by groups of hatemongers who create cowardly organisations that pretend to be about “family”, when they’re only about imposing their own twisted version of Christianity upon others. I’ll use my platform on RPS to speak out against that when it starts affecting gaming.

      • aircool says:

        I know fine well that you’re a Christian, you mentioned it when you were getting married, but I don’t think that makes any difference. I’m not homophobic, but that doesn’t make my opinion any more valid in anyone elses eyes.

        I’ll concede I’m no debater, which is why I’d never cut it as a journalist. As you are the author, whatever you write is your opinion; I just thought it was a little too personal, even for RPS.

        As for the guy who called me a prick, I never said homophobia was right or wrong, neither did I give my opinion on the subject of homosexuality or homophobia. Yet for some reason, I’m instantly presumed to be homophobic because I didn’t speak out for the other team. Great way to start breeding hatred by assuming one thing with no evidence.

        So yeah, calling me a prick and basically calling me a homophobe has kinda torpedoed my good mood. You’ve made someone feel down for no reason…. Makes you feel better does it?

        • John Walker says:

          When you criticise criticism of homophobia, you kind of have to assume that people will react in such a way. It does rather look like you’re defending homophobia, you see.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          Sorry about your mood and everything Aircool, I just assumed being as you’re so into respecting all views and opinions that you’d respect my opinion that you’re a prick. You saying that I shouldn’t call you a prick is just as bad as me calling you one in the first place after all.

          • aircool says:

            If your comfortable being ignorant of anything beyond your umwelt, then I can live with that. I can’t make blind people see, but if simply insist on keeping your eyes closed then so be it. I can’t help you if you refuse to look at the world in a wider perspective.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            Sweetie if you’re going to accuse people of being ignorant and blind because they won’t accept the validity of homophobia then you’re not doing much to rid yourself of the ‘prick’ label.

            Haven’t you noticed that you’re arguing for all opinions to be respected, but in doing so not respecting my argument that they shouldn’t? Your position is impossible, you cannot respect all opinions because the idea that you should represents an opinion to be defended. What you are doing however is saying that attempting to marginalise groups of people through prejudice is okay and should be respected, but fighting against prejudice and marginalisation shouldn’t be allowed. It is impossible to both respect peoples right to be homophobic and to respect the right of people to be anti-homophobia, and you come across as aligned more with the former. How on earth do you intend to create a society where gay people have equality whilst also respecting the views of homophobics that they should be marginalised? The two are in direct opposition, you can’t respect both. Look at what you wrote before, you’re saying that homophobic opinion should be respected, and in taking that position you are saying that being against homophobia and trying to prevent it is wrong. Can you not see how this makes you come across? It makes you look like you’re trying to rationalise an essentially homophobic position through confused liberal rhetoric.

            Hmm…confusion and homophobia, such a common combination.

          • Klaus says:

            “I can’t help you if you refuse to look at the world in a wider perspective.”

            No, no, no, no, no. It’s not a ‘wider perspective’ when you see bigotry happening, sit back and mutter about a man’s right to believe what he wants. You wont chastise the perpetrators, but you’ll chastise those who will?

            Nothing but perverse intellectualism.

        • Hanban says:

          First of all, I doubt anyone here takes satisfaction from your mood growing sour.

          I see where you’re coming from, and I respect what you say to a certain extent. But for someone in my line of work I just can’t accept this sort of relativism in regards to what views should be considered acceptable.

          I work as a teacher. And this relativistic idea that all views are okay and that we shouldn’t have double standards can kill. On the one hand you have bigoted people and their right to expressing stupid uneducated opinions, and on the other you have gay people who have to suffer because of someone else’s opinion of their existence. I just don’t see how that is the same. You speak of widening people’s perspectives? Why don’t you try widening the bigots’. At the end of the day, they don’t suffer or commit suicide from having to live in a society where their views are frowned upon.

          Everyone has the right to express their opinion. But, that does not mean it shouldn’t be criticized. My personal wish is that I’ll one day work in an environment where you don’t get beaten up for acting differently. And I just don’t see that happening if we silently accept that some people’s existence is wrong and disgusting.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            Do you know what Hanban (aside from the fact that I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said there) I had you down for a shrink like me after your impressive Lacan-esque analyses in the last LGBT story comments. You really should consider a change of career if you ever get bored of teaching!

            It was an interpretation of repressed homosexuality in Star Wars I seem to remember…

      • Metonymy says:

        You’ll look at your feet in shame when Christ inquires about your public acceptance of something he called an abomination. “Not one punctuation mark shall pass from the law until all things are fulfilled.”

        My advice, as always, is to stick to what you know, and keep quiet about the other things.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          Or maybe he’ll be dead chuffed when Christ congratulates him for publicly expounding his teachings of acceptance, equality and love.

    • Tim Ward says:

      First of all let me first say that stupid people do not have the right to an opinion. I formed this opinion after reading the Have Your Say section on BBC News and comments on Youtube. I challenge anyone to do the same and not agree me on that particular point.

      Second of all, you say “everyone has the right to an opinion”, then go on to explain why it’s not ok to criticism homophobia because everyone has the right to an opinion? That logic seems pretty frigging twisting right there.

      Third of all, it is perfectly valid to bring up religion when religion is a primary motivator of someone in whatever topic you’re discussing. It’s like trying to discuss the crusades or islamic terrorism without mentioning the religious motivations of the crusaders or terrorists, sure you can make a perfectly valid case that those actions are in fact not inline with the teachings of those two religions but just ignoring the religious aspect of them is balls to the wall retarded.

      Forth of all, and this is very important, criticizing religion IS NOT NOT NOT the same thing as attacking someone on the basis of their race or sexuality. Your race, or your sexual preferences are part of who you are and cannot be changed and they effect no one. Religion is a doctrine, a set of ideas, which have things to say not only about personal conduct but how wider society should be organised which you can choose to adopt or reject. It is no more beyond criticism than a philosophy, economic theory or a political creed. Especially when it is used as the justification for a vile and needless attack on people who are doing nothing but minding their own business.

      So, basically, you’re wrong about pretty much everything.

      • retropixl says:

        Your first sentence:
        “First of all let me first say that stupid people do not have the right to an opinion.”

        Your last sentence:
        “So, basically, you’re wrong about pretty much everything.”

        Now, think for a minute, do you really expect anyone to read whatever shite might lie sandwiched in between?

    • aircool says:

      Sorry. I was having an OOC day yesterday.

      It’s not me, it’s the PTSD and schizophrenia.

      Have to mention one thing though, if stupid people aren’t allowed an opinion, then surely they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, have children etc… ¬_¬

      • Hanban says:

        Everyone is allowed an opinion. But as has been stated earlier, no opinion can be exempt from criticism. Certainly not an opinion that affects lives.

  40. nootpingu86 says:

    Honestly, why wouldn’t EA defend its treatment of homosexuality in Mass Effect?

    I also don’t think the WCIA voting has anything to do with this. I don’t see why there’s any need to shore up EA’s moral image on the part of RPS. They’ve taken an anti-consumer tack for years upon years. If you don’t know why, you haven’t been listening. That’s what the WCIA voting was about. Nice feeble attempt at a smear. I’m sure some people are gullible enough to buy it.

    Of course, the WCIA voters ‘ruined’ an internet poll by voting them in instead of far more pernicious companies. A bloo bloo our internet poll is ruined.

  41. marlin says:

    Where’s Wulf when you need him? I mean, I can understand no Khemm, cos no-one’s said ‘Steam’ yet, but we’re talking LGBT… C’mon Wulf,…Wulf…….WULF…..

  42. D3xter says:

    This is outright disgusting reporting, the likes of Fox News, letting EA get by with their business practices all the while gobbling up their PR campaign that they were lucky enough to have ready just one day after being voted the “Worst Company in America” to deflect from that and basically call the 160.000+ people that voted for them “Homophobes” is just disgusting and reminds me of politics and how they package every law curtailing personal freedoms with the “protection of children”, “terrorism” or the newest thing “piracy”. link to weknowmemes.com
    It’s even worse seeing some of these “game journalists” eating it up like this… Ugh…

  43. celozzip says:

    i’m gonna say it loud and say it proud! i’m straight and i don’t give a shit about gay rights! yeah! that’s right you heard me! i don’t care! hahahaha!! what do you think about that you bleeding hearts?? i don’t care if some black kid got shot by a white man either!! take that obama!!

    • nootpingu86 says:

      I do a great deal. I don’t care when an a janky, opportunistic firm like EA pretends it’s some kind of saint by espousing tolerance and feeding this to gaming “journalists” who then shore them up with good PR the day after earning a “worst company in america award”. I agree with the above commenter that this is some hilariously awful corporate apologetics masquerading as a news item. In other words, par for the course.

  44. Zepp says:

    EA champions of gay community! Hurrah Hurrah Hurrah!

  45. no says:

    How much money are you accepting from EA for this?

    • Skabooga says:

      John answered this in a response to a previous comment: $4.50.

  46. Ham Solo says:

    “EA has yet to report if these people have also complained about black characters being allowed to ride up front in the Normandy.”

    My sides!

  47. Some_Guy says:

    Id any RPS people read this far, how may hoophobic . comments needed deleation? just curious weatehr RPS truy is a nice part of the net or you are good moderators?

    • Hanban says:

      RPS always moderate their comments section. If anyone steps out of line it’ll get taken away. I’ve already seen one comment edited for profanity.

    • John Walker says:

      We usually moderate, but I haven’t removed a single comment from this discussion. The only thing I’ve changed is someone needlessly calling someone else a moron.

      • Some_Guy says:

        Thanks for answering, nice to know that this is the true character of the site.

  48. AMonkey says:

    What a perfect press release to try and shift attention from their recent bad publicity: “EA, victims of homosexual discrimination, stand up for whats right!”.

  49. memy says:

    I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe this. As someone who spends most of his day on /v/, by far the most hate-filled videogame community on the internet, I heard literally nothing about this “hate campaign.” The only source is EA itself. And coming out with this so soon after being voted “Worst Company?” Talk about suspicious timing. This seems to me like a poor publicity stunt, and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

    I expected more from RPS.

    • Eddy9000 says:

      link to floridafamily.org

      Here you are sweetie. xx

    • RedViv says:

      And this whole business started with this little gem, I think, which started an avalanche: link to frc.org

      I thought this was too ridiculous in both its attempt at gay-bashing and its failure to choose sides in Star Wars.

    • memy says:

      I hope you both realize that next to no-one take the FRC and FFA seriously at all. Their combined readership is less than the number of comments on this article. Besides, the timing remains incredibly suspicious. Those two articles are over a month old, yet we’re just hearing about them now?

    • D3xter says:

      Honestly, I wouldn’t even be surprised if this was all staged by EA to get PR, they did fake protests passing off as religious groups protesting their company before for Dante’s Inferno: link to arstechnica.com

      From Ars: “A few gaming blogs ran the story of Christians upset over the content of the game, but it was quickly revealed EA had in fact staged the protest via a viral marketing agency.

      The gaming press rolled its collective eyes, but Christian bloggers weren’t amused.”

      “Outraged Christian bloggers, complaining female and LGBT gamers, editors being sent checks made out directly to them—all of this makes for delicious copy, and much of the gnashing of teeth seems to be centered on the fact that the gaming press continues to fall for the contrived controversy to give the company exactly what it wants: coverage.”

      They also had that “Sin to Win” campaign: link to kotaku.com and the “Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2” etc.
      It wouldn’t be a far cry from there to pay some organization to send them fake letters or similar…

      It’s ludicrous for anyone to believe that they “stand up” for any of those causes instead of instrumentalizing them and it’s anything more than press relations to them…

    • Chelicerate says:

      Woah man, someone not a part of a discriminated-against minority doesn’t notice discrimination against said minority?

      Shocking! Absolutely shocking!

    • Tim Ward says:

      If anyone finds this implausible then they don’t know enough about the religious right in America. I know there’s a lot of homophobia in video-games, but it’s basis is completely different: it’s just teenagers throwing around the term fag without thinking about it, and the fact that men kissing makes them uncomfortable. Hopefully, they’ll grow out of it. The fundies, not so much.

  50. Vorphalack says:

    Ironically, this announcement has probably done more to further the casue the the homophobic campaign than they could ever have achieved on thier own.

    You want to keep bigotry and intollerance down EA? Don’t give them any press at all. Using this to score PR points after the ”worst company in America” award is unbelivably self serving, not to mention stupid.

    • Eddy9000 says:

      So it’s better to ignore homophobia than to openly denounce it?

      Not following you there honestly.

      • Phantoon says:

        He’s saying that no one was talking about what these idiots thought beforehand. It’s like copycat killings- some nutjob hears about some murderer on the news and goes “HEY I’LL DO IT LIKE THAT” and then they do. That’s an extreme example, but the people being given exposure here by EA are also extremely stupid.

        • DXN says:

          Nah, I don’t buy it. The way to make something socially unacceptable is to pile on the social pressure against it. When someone says hateful bullshit or tries to promote a hateful agenda, you call them the fuck out on it, and it makes their social standing that much weaker.