[Editor’s Note: Contains discussion of violence, homophobia, transphobia, racism.]

A game was recently removed from Steam, the major platform for PC gaming distribution. It’s a light gun game: a target reticule is all you control as characters pop on screen you must shoot. Indeed: Shooting is all you can do. As with all such games, the challenge is in the position and appearance of targets, as well as the type of characters who appear: Some are meant to be shot, some grant bonuses and others result in penalties. The challenge is knowing who to shoot.

The game is called “Kill the Faggot”, giving you an idea of who the game intends you to target and the kind of person who would find this “funny.” You get bonuses for shooting transgender people (“Transgender kill!” announces a voice when such a target is shot) and penalties for straight people. Throughout play, you hear someone putting on a voice which is an apparent attempt at a gay person, as interpreted by frat jocks in the 90’s; this voice focuses on further mocking gay people with sexual innuendo and awful “jokes.”

Towleroad notes you can hear other lines like “you want to chop my weiner?”, “I just dropped the soap,” “AIDS carrier eliminated,” and “straight pride.”

And, at the end, the developer claims not to be homophobic.

Of course, who would? He can’t be homophobic, see, because he knows those are offensive lines and horrible attitudes! And, somehow, awareness of awfulness mitigates perpetuating it, even while doing so. This is like punching someone while shouting “I know this hurts!”

In explaining why the game was released and indeed made, the developer says:

“I decided to release it on Greenlight to see people’s reactions. The reason behind this particular game is because of how tired I am of people being overly sensitive and how easily offended people are by every little thing, especially with LGBT issues.” (Emphasis ours.)

What does it say about someone who decides the target of his jokes and satire should be a people who still aren’t viewed as persons, even in America; people who are murdered, jailed, or assaulted if their sexual orientation was known; people who, basically, are still treated as lesser persons all over the world?

Targeting marginalized people, those who face systemic oppression and ostracisation for who they are rather than anything they’ve done, deserves criticism, not praise or admiration. The world itself does enough to target those of us who are not straight, cis, white, able-bodied men.

There is nothing brave or interesting or good in targeting those of us who already deal with oppression, in multiple ways, everyday. Someone looked at people being abused and oppressed and decided a good use of their time and effort was making a game “to see people’s reactions;” a person who saw a group dealing with horrible issues and decided to “ironically” add to it.

Why? There’s nothing unique in asserting the same kind of bigoted nonsense that happens on its own anyway. If you want to “see people’s reactions,” why not look at how and why gay rights activist combat homophobia? Look at continuing responses to racism that continues to exist, in various forms.

Just because you’re aware it’s bigotry, just because you say it in a funny voice, in no way mitigates impact. He’s another bigot, but he’s wearing a clown costume.

I also don’t understand how you can be “oversensitive” to oppression that literally impacts lives. What level is the “correct” sensitivity? Again, just because you said it in a funny voice, doesn’t mean you’re not playing the same instruments as other bigots. You may be Lisa Simpson dancing out the door, but you’re still part of the bigot band.

We also need to be careful about speaking about sensitivity: Privileged people like to think they’re treating everyone equally and, by doing so, showing respect for all.

The mindset is this: “If I can mock a rich straight white man, I can mock a gay person of color: I don’t want to infantilize you, so I will use racial or homophobic slurs at you but, see, I’m also saying this rich actor has a funny face.”

Equality!

The problem with equal opportunity offence, such as this, is that it doesn’t fit in a world where people are not equally targeted by society itself, in multiple ways, all the time. Consider just the example of gay people compared to straight people: Straight people are not targeted for being straight: there is no place where straight people can’t get married; you’d be hard-pressed to find a large number of cases where straight people lose jobs or careers or relationships because others “find out” they’re straight. Yet, it is the case for many whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual.

Claiming people are “oversensitive” when you spout “ironic” bigotry maybe makes sense if you genuinely believe people are all equally targeted by bigotry. But, again, we’re not.

You see this often from those who claim to be “blind” to people’s race, sexual orientation, etc. – in what is yet another attempt at equal treatment. “Treat them as people, first!” is the claim.

To such people I can only give a half nod.

I’m a person, yes. I am a person of color. In many instances, to be dismissive of people’s identity – their race, their sexual orientation – is to be dismissive of people themselves. For me: You cannot overlook the impact my race has had on my life. The acknowledgement of that part of my identity might remind you the world isn’t fair, but that’s not a reason to brush it away; it’s not a reason to tell me and others to stop being “sensitive,” when we and our families were the ones, not two decades ago, targeted by a racist government; when I still receive racist threats and white supremacists proudly tell me they’ll never shake my hand because I’m “impure.” You can’t call my gay friends “sensitive” when they’re not allowed to marry in certain States in America, can’t donate blood, can’t discuss who they love with their parents – in 2015.

The idea that we live in an equal world is the domain of foolishness and ignorance; it’s one that’s more comforting for those unaffected by these kinds of bigotry. Of course their privilege means they can afford to ignore it, they can afford to say “grow thicker skin”, mock us for caring. They often forget that even if we wanted to, many of us targeted for our identity can’t: My income, my social life, my writing, everything is affected by how I manage that part of my identity which is targeted by horrible bigotry. How am I supposed to ignore that someone won’t hire me because he hates “Muslims?” How do my friends “ignore” that they’re in an industry where so many bosses are homophobic? How do female colleagues ignore that they have to use pseudonyms to speak against sexism, lest they incur damage to their careers and threats to their lives?

Telling us to ignore these things is telling us to shut up, because you’re tired of hearing about it (If you’re tired of hearing about it, imagine how tired I and others are of living it). When products like “Kill the Faggot” come along to remind us how hateful some people still view certain struggles, we put that in a box marked “reality.” But then we take it with us and use our voices to change it – while the person who made it uses his voice to talk about how much he doesn’t care.

Tauriq Moosa writes on ethics and digital culture for The Daily Beast, Guardian and elsewhere. His hatred for comment sections made it into the New York Times. He can be found yelling at men on his Twitter and links to his other work can be found here. He is excellent at writing in the third person.

(image via Pieter Beens / Shutterstock.com)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com