Video game players can now identify their characters as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Which is wonderful, unless you're a sad homophobe. Sonic the Hedgehog never agonised over his sexual identity …
Ah, Mr Brooker. Without doubt one of the funniest writers and broadcasters working today. Even if I don't quite agree with his interpretation of the ME3 ending controversy, this article had me laughing my ass off.
He's always hysterical and his social commentary is second to none. I've yet to play ME3 so not yet sure if I agree or not. But he makes a compelling argument on why people should be so upset at the inclusion of LGBT gaming characters. As the old saying goes 'It's the squeeky wheel that wants the grease.' He might just be right.
"t must be awful, being a homophobe. Having to spend all that time obsessing about what gay people might be doing with their genitals. Seeing it in your mind, over and over again, in high-definition close-up. Bravely you masturbate, to make the pictures go away, but to no avail. " Genius xD
Great article, if this guy usually writes stuff like this then I need to start following his write-ups. As pointed out above he doesn't actually seem to know that much about the ME3 ending situation (he even says Bioware have already released an additional ending which is wrong on two points) but that's not the focus of the article anyway.
He does a lot of TV and Newspaper articles. You might want to check out 'Charlie Brooker Gameswipe' on youtube.
For the purposes of gaming specifically I can second the Gameswipe recommendation - even if it was sadly just a one-off - but for the purposes of general entertainment Screenwipe, Newswipe, 10 O'Clock Live and his Monday column in the Guardian are well worth a look. He's consistently hilarious, and usually spot-on to boot.
Bring back Screenwipe!! But seriously, nail-on-head about everything except the ME3 fiasco (I suppose he just read EA's comments about it and took that as gospel).
The only problem I had with it was how in a couple cases it's kind of shoved in your face, which didn't feel like natural conversation at all to me. Just felt forced like they were including it just to include it.
This is an article by Charlie Brooker responding to an attempt by a Christian Charity in the UK to put anti-gay/pro-straight adverts on London buses. The charity succeeded in getting a contract however the mayor intervened and stopped it from happening on grounds that it's 'homophobic' and 'offensive.' (In my opinion, he did it as an election campaign stunt.) I admit that this piece was hilarious but I disagree with Charlie's views. I'm not one to go around campaigning against gay people however something like this really does go against a fundamental principle of freedom of expression. There were adverts on buses and billboards before with the message - "Some people are gay. Get over over it." This is a thought provoking message that is both social and political. The charity were going to advertise this message - "Not gay! Ex-Gay, post-gay and proud! Get over it!" which in my opinion isn't exactly offensive. There's nothing wrong with not being homosexual or changing to heterosexuality. And there's nothing wrong with being proud that you heterosexual or ex-gay same as those who are proud of being homosexual or ex-straight. It's this new phenomenon in Western culture now where we're being shoved in the face with messages telling us to get over the fact some people are gay and forcing us to accept as something righteous without any logical reason. Scientists have proven that there is no such thing as a 'gay' gene and so homosexuality is more psychological than biological. My point being: I don't have to accept homosexuality as righteous but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to burn every gay person I see. The same goes for gay people. They can believe that homosexuality is an acceptable thing but that doesn't mean using militant or aggressive methods to convince the rest of the world that it is acceptable. These days it seems that it's completely okay to promote homosexuality but completely wrong to promote heterosexuality. I mean, has the world gone mad or something?
@Eamon Wow... you are seven shades of wrong. If you had followed any of Charlie's other media broadcasts you would have seen that he has been quite vocal on the whole EA/gay issue. Yes he might have incorporated stonewalls message into the headline but had he meant to address the ill fated retracted right wing advertisment, he would have. Nothing about ANY of that debacle was mentioned or even alluded to IN ANY WAY. You can say your not into anti gay campaigning as much as you like but your words suggest otherwise. It's like saying 'I don't mean to be rude BUT...'(yeah it's always being rude). What you did was take an article and twist it round to your own (anti-gay) agenda. And make a stand against something completely different. But since you brought it up, let me point out the other ways I think your massively incorrect. The stonewall advert was to raise awareness, it stated that there were gay people in the world and that you shouldn't care one way or another. The right wing christian charity that runs 'prey the gay away' events is offensive because they tell homosexuals that they should be ex-gays. Stonewall at no point said YOU SHOULD be gay get over it. Had they not been a company that attempts to change people or indeed included one happily gay person in the advert then I'm sure it would have been allowed. 'Scientists have proven that there is no such thing as a 'gay' gene and so homosexuality is more psychological than biological' Do you know more than every scientist and psychologist in the world? Please share your vast knowledge with the rest of us. Since when have they mapped and identified EVERY gene? There are still a thousand nature Vs. nurture arguments and the jury is still out. Nobody knows...that is the fundamental truth. There is evidence of homosexuality in the vast majority of species on this planet. Would you afford that Animals and Birds have sentience and free will? Did they choose? Could it be a genetic anomaly? Did the animals parental units do such a bad job that it ultimately led to the homosexual behaviour? 'okay to promote homosexuality but completely wrong to promote heterosexuality.' Please tell me when in your entire life have you socially been subjected to anti-heterosexualism. Because believe me if your a UK citizen and have proof. You have one hell of a killer law suite on your hands. I know plenty of people who would jump at a case like that...it's a career maker. And you would be rolling around in cash.
Fantastic response right there, my friend. Bubbles!
Maybe my words suggest otherwise to you but I can assure you that I have absolutely no interest in anti-gay campaigning. Mainly because I don't really give a damn if another person is homosexual or not. It simply has no concern to me. Yes, I am aware of the whole EA/gay issue. But Charlie is British and a political commentator and he definitely wrote this article in response to the anti-gay campaign on buses. The stonewall advert was flawed in its conception. It was passive aggressive in its nature. Especially the part "Get over it." It usually consisted of a white background with thick black words thus making the message have more of an impact. Telling us to get over it is like forcing their own opinion onto us without giving any justification or reasoning. It's like a student complaining about why there are bullies in the playground and the teacher simply tells you to get over it. Regardless of the real intentions behind the stonewall advert, it had the wrong responses. I remember, at my college, people ripping down such posters or writing graffiti saying '#### you, I won't get over it.' Billboards were vandalised and the internet made comical parodies of the rhetoric used in the campaign. It only provoked the anti-gay opinion into becoming more hostile rather than any real discussion. "Had they not been a company that attempts to change people or indeed included one happily gay person in the advert then I'm sure it would have been allowed." ^ This is factually incorrect. It had passed through Advertising Standards Authority; meaning they did not believe it was offensive or could cause any hostile reactions. It was the mayor, Boris Johnson, who decided to intervene. And mind you, he only intervened when the newspapers made an issue of it. Had the newspapers not said anything, I'd probably be seeing the averts on London's buses by now. Also, words were very similar to the stonewall advert: "Not gay! Ex-Gay, post-gay and proud! Get over it!" It suggests that it's okay to be proud that you are ex-gay. And there's nothing wrong with being ex-gay. The main reason that this message was seen by newspapers and LGBT campaigners as bigoted was because it was a Christian organisation that was behind it. If it was a secular or simply a non-religious organisation, the LGBT camp would find it a lot harder to condemn them.
As for the 'gay gene.' As of now, what is fact is that no gene that 'produces the homosexual orientation' of a person has been identified. Scientists have many theories why such a gene wouldn't exist anyway. A theory mentions how a person who has diabetes would have inherited it from his parents because its a genetic abnormality. A person with diabetes cannot change that condition. However a homosexual can change his sexual orientation to heterosexual. Another more stronger theory suggests that, since homosexuality had been practised for thousands of years, if a 'gay gene' did exist, it would have died a long time ago due to the fact that a gay couple could not reproduce offspring which would inherit their genes. The paradox of this would lead to a conclusion that the 'gay gene' simply does not exist. You mention animals and homosexuality. Well, it is true. You're right. Humans can scientifically be considered as animals too. What is true is that the vast majority of animals are heterosexual. If the facts were flipped one day, and homosexuality became the majority, we would witness the gradual extinction of animals and human race as the rate of death will be greater than the rate of birth. It's been shown in a documentary, that within a Lion Pride, the dominant male would violently prevent its young male offspring from sodomising each other. Lions like most animals react on limited intelligence through instinct. Meaning there is no human-level prejudice as the lion father is simply trying to do the best for its cubs. So yes, animals can get curious like human beings and attempt homosexual acts of sexuality but that doesn't exactly make it normal. "Please tell me when in your entire life have you socially been subjected to anti-heterosexualism." ^ Maybe I mis-represented my argument a bit. I did experience militant pro-gay people. They weren't anti-heterosexuality per se. Let me quote an experience I had. At university, I was speaking to girl. The discussion led to a conversation about homosexuality. She gave her own views first and asked me. I literally replied with the following words: "I find homosexuality disgusting." She replied with hostility saying I am ####ing bigot and it's people like me that are backward minded and I'm prejudiced and homophobic etc. I didn't say that I'm against a person being homosexual. I didn't call for any banning. I didn't call for anything. I simply told her my view which is pretty much held by most heterosexual people. It's this aggressiveness I noticed. Apparently I'm not allowed to find it disgusting. So I'm supposed to find homosexuality appealing or attractive or arousing? Sorry but that would make no sense since I'm not gay. I'm straight so of course I would find the idea of same-sex relationships disgusting. So anyway, please don't misunderstand me. Be gay or whatever you like. The same goes for any human being. I honestly don't care. But don't try to make me acknowledge that it's right when I don't think it is. You may campaign for your rights but that doesn't mean I have to accept it as 'natural' or 'okay.' I'm not one of those people who campaign against gay people or call for them to be hanged or burnt. I'm not Christian. I'm agnostic. I couldn't care less about what religion has to say about homosexuality. My opinions come from what I have learnt throughout my life. There are confirmed & identified genes that make humans and animals attracted to their opposite genders. A gene that makes humans and animals attracted to same genders have yet to be found and I'm under the opinion it probably will never be found. I still believe it's a psychological phenomenon as people can change from gay to straight throughout their lives.
LOL. As always, hostile reactions from the pro-gay camp. Just to differentiate myself from you, Billybobjriii, I don't find gay people disgusting. Only the orientation and subsequent romantic or sexual acts. And please go and ask the opinion of any honest heterosexual person and I can guarantee they share the same opinion as me. I mean that's only logical. If straight people didn't find sodomy with their own gender disgusting then, most people would be bisexual.
People that think being gay is a choice have no expeiernce what its like to be a gay man or they would never say such bs.
Your problem- or so it seems- is that you don't know how to say what you mean. You lack tact. You say you're not anti-gay; in that case, the first thing you say CAN'T be that homosexuality disgusts you, even if you only mean the acts. I have gay male and female friends, and while I'm as drawn to watching/taking part in homosexual acts as I am to anal sex- not at all- I'm not so uncouth as to say it's disgusting. What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom- or anywhere else when no one's looking- is their business. And remember, heterosexuality is pretty disgusting to them, too. There is no gene, nor is there a need for one. The genes you speak of are identifiers, so to speak, for determining who would best be able to pass on genes: preferring nice "child-bearing" hips in a woman, or wanting a provider in a man. But genes also aren't everything. There's no gene that makes me like small boobs, just as there's no gene that makes my dad like big asses. Sexuality isn't coded into your genes any more than your personality. Being gay is NOT a choice. I challenge anyone who thinks such to MAKE themselves like the same sex. I recall a gay man once asked, "Why would anybody CHOOSE to go through all the hardships being gay means in this world? Who would want to put themselves through all that?"
Oops wrong post.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.