Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[maembe]

So again, back to my example, if a football team ever had someone in the locker room say "Now, let's go out there and kill those guys", the person saying that should be held accountable for talking about murder of the opposite team.

Replace "guys" with a racial slur, and yes, it's very obvious that that would be inappropriate and the person who said it should be held accountable.

[Mothman]

Oh, so if Priefer says "he didn't mean it that way" we should all just take his word for it?

Of course not and nobody is suggesting that but how he said it, what else he may have said, how the other people present interpreted the situation, etc. would all help paint a more complete, and hopefully accurate, version of events. We shouldn't just accept any individual's version of what happened and right now, that's what we have: one person's take.

Regardless of his intent, he still doesn't get to determine how Kluwe takes it. If Kluwe said he was bothered by it, why can't he be bothered by it, especially considering their relationship?

I think you've missed the point. Nobody is trying deny Kluwe the right to feel however he wants to feel. The point of understanding the context of the situation is to get an accurate picture of what happened, a version of events that isn't just based on Kluwe's feelings and perceptions. There were other people present. How did they interpret what happened?

Obviously comedians get away with it, but are people really that desperate for an argument regarding context that they'd link Priefer to a professional comedian...?

I'm not desperate at all. I was simply providing an example to explain why context matters. If you don't like that example, think about why evidence and eyewitness testimony are presented in a court of law. It's an attempt to create an accurate version of events.

We need more than Kluwe's one paragraph description of what happened if we're going to get an accurate picture.

[Mothman]

Yes, in his eyes (it doesn't matter if we think it's right or wrong at this point) them drafting Locke was a direct result of a recommendation by Priefer and happened as a result of Priefer's bias against him and his stance on LGBT rights. Or at least that's how I'm taking what he says.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

Maybe ... but it depends on the culture of the place I work. With the mentality that a large chunk of the NFL seems to have, I would be worried about coming off as a "whiner" and losing my job. Lets face it, punters aren't exactly the most difficult to replace position. Of course I would like to believe that I'd do 'the right thing' in my mind ... but self preservation is a pretty big motivator. And perhaps that will hurt Kluwe's case ... but it seems like a pretty human reaction to have.

It is a pretty human reaction and that may be exactly why he waited so long to say anything. That same motivation for self-preservation is like why Priefer reportedly lied about what he said.

It calls what he says into question a bit, no doubt. The timing doesn't support his case well, for sure. It'd be nice to see what the Vikings found when they researched the allegations themselves ... or what proof Kluwe actually has.

It sure would. If that report is actually released, it should make interesting reading.

I'm not sure if he has the proof or not. He has a year to file suit and that has been extended at this point. Just because he's willing to work with the Vikings out of court doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have the proof ... but whatever proof he does have (which I'm guessing amounts to eye-witness testimony), I don't think we've seen it yet, have we?

We certainly haven't heard any eyewitness testimony.

Just to be clear, when I said he doesn't have proof, I was basing that on his statement that he doesn't know if his activism is the reason he was fired. I think if he had proof of wrongful termination, we'd already know about it.

[Funkytown]

We need more than Kluwe's one paragraph description of events if we're going to get an accurate picture of what happened.

And Priefer had many chances to tell his side, and he repeatedly denied denied denied. Seems to me, his credibility is pretty much shot. So, an argument of context would be extremely weak. Wouldn't it? Other witnesses might paint a little different picture than Kluwe, but of course those comments wouldn't affect them in the same way. That's a given. It was personal. You think their stories of that day are going to be in favor of Priefer or at least more nuetral? That's fine, but if Priefer believed that, I think he would have been honest a long time ago. He denied it all initially and then a couple times during the investigation? Doesn't even seem like he is confident regarding the argument of context. To me, most people lie to cover something up (as opposed to lying about, "Oh hunny, you look great in that dress! lol). Why do they cover it up? Because they are likely acknowledging some kind of wrongdoing. Regardless of context, dude knows he screwed up and he shouldn't have said those things. Why lie? I think repeatedly lying about the incident throws out any context argument, especially when Priefer is the one continually lying about what happened. He's a proven liar, so I can't take his word seriously. The other witnesses? Sure! Let's hear it.

[Cliff]

It is a pretty human reaction and that may be exactly why he waited so long to say anything. That same motivation for self-preservation is like why Priefer reportedly lied about what he said.

Indeed, that's why I haven't been quick to jump on the "Priefer is a liar and since he lied we should assume everything else about him from Kluwe is true!" bandwagon. Context or no, his comments would get him huge backlash from the public and I'm sure he didn't want to be associated with them regardless of how he said it.

Though I will say this; I view Priefer's lie as a bigger negative to him than I do Kluwe's timing against him ... and coupled with the lie if the Vikings don't release the report and the silence continues from Priefer I'm more included to learn towards Kluwe's account as time goes on.

It sure would. If that report is actually released, it should make interesting reading.

Yeah, and I'll read it if it is released ... but I'd definitely rather have something else going on with the Vikings that was both positive and more interesting than this story.

We certainly haven't heard any eyewitness testimony.

Just to be clear, when I said he doesn't have proof, I was basing that on his statement that he doesn't know if his activism is the reason he was fired. I think if he had proof of wrongful termination, we'd already know about it.

I'm not sure if we would or not. It hasn't gone to trial yet but still could and so it seems like he'd keep that stuff close to the chest until a decision was made one way or another. He has also said that he doesn't want to hurt the organization as a whole (as he has friends still on the team, etc) ... so he could actually be keeping it quiet for that reason.

[dead_poet]

Do any of you really think someone like Bill Belichick would've put up with his non-sense?

Probably. What would he have done about it? Fined him? Suspended him? Fired him?

[Mothman]

And Priefer had many chances to tell his side, and he repeatedly denied denied denied. Seems to me, his credibility is pretty much shot. So, an argument of context would be extremely weak. Wouldn't it? Other witnesses might paint a little different picture than Kluwe, but of course those comments wouldn't affect them in the same way. That's a given. It was personal. You think their stories of that day are going to be in favor of Priefer or at least more nuetral?

I don't know and neither do you. That's the point. You keep bringing up Kluwe's feelings when he heard the remark as if that's what's significant here. The exact nature of Priefer's behavior and what impact, if any, it had on Kluwe's release from the team is the key issue and that's why getting an idea of what happened beyond Kluwe's version of things matters.

By the way, you're assuming the comment was personal and at this point, we don't even know if that's true. Was it directed at Kluwe? Was it directed at the room? It really shouldn't be difficult to see why the context in which the statement was made matters. For all we know, the next sentence out of Priefer's mouth might put the whole thing in a somewhat different light. It might make it better or worse or just different but it would help us get a better idea of what actually happened.

That's fine, but if Priefer believed that, I think he would have been honest a long time ago. He denied it all initially and then a couple times during the investigation? Doesn't even seem like he is confident regarding the argument of context.

Maybe he simply understands that to a lot of people it won't matter. They've already made up their minds. There's a man trying to end his career and there's an angry lynch mob not far behind, eager to condemn him on little more than the word of Chris Kluwe. Priefer has no motivation to help that process along.

[Mothman]

Hmm... I replied to this and the post didn't appear. weird.

Indeed, that's why I haven't been quick to jump on the "Priefer is a liar and since he lied we should assume everything else about him from Kluwe is true!" bandwagon. Context or no, his comments would get him huge backlash from the public and I'm sure he didn't want to be associated with them regardless of how he said it.

Exactly. Well said.

Though I will say this; I view Priefer's lie as a bigger negative to him than I do Kluwe's timing against him ... and coupled with the lie if the Vikings don't release the report and the silence continues from Priefer I'm more included to learn towards Kluwe's account as time goes on.

I understand. I just need more information before I can draw conclusions. As you can tell, I'm highly suspicious regarding Kluwe's version of events but that doesn't mean I think Priefer's innocent. I need more info.

Yeah, and I'll read it if it is released ... but I'd definitely rather have something else going on with the Vikings that was both positive and more interesting than this story.

Agreed! I'm ready for a nice long stretch of positive news about the Vikings and positive results for them on the field.

I'm not sure if we would or not. It hasn't gone to trial yet but still could and so it seems like he'd keep that stuff close to the chest until a decision was made one way or another. He has also said that he doesn't want to hurt the organization as a whole (as he has friends still on the team, etc) ... so he could actually be keeping it quiet for that reason.

Time will tell!

[King James]

Except he planned on, you know, donating that to a LGBT organization.

So he says. At first I thought the plan was to get Priefer fired or stop other teams from being interested in hiring him. Now he wants to sue?

Of course not. All there is is testimony and eyewitness accounts. That's the evidence in this whole thing. There's no smoking gay gun or purple sequined glove. I'm not sure what other type of evidence you think there needs to be. Priefer never assaulted anybody.

What I am saying is testimony and eyewitness accounts aren't enough for in my opinion for this case unless some players came forth and said something.

I understand that point of view, but is it really so hard to imagine someone keeping their mouth shut at the time so one wouldn't lose their job or create a hostile working environment?

That's like if someone told me they should round up all blacks and send them on an island and nuke them. There's no way I could keep my mouth shut. As for losing my job or creating a hostile working environment, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't want to work for a team that discriminates against certain people. But I guess some people will put up with anything if they get paid enough.

Pretty sure people that are homophobic weren't "on the fence" about homosexuality and consequently leaned towards non-acceptance because of Kluwe's actions.

I disagree. I think homophobia can be fixed. You have those people are homophobic but really don't know why, they just figure it's not normal because their never been exposed around that lifestyle yet. Then you have the people like me who are just completely against it and wish all people could be heterosexual regardless.

[dead_poet]

Replaced him with a different Punter. Belichick has moved on from people for less.

Which is exactly the point of all of this, is it not?

[dead_poet]

So he says. At first I thought the plan was to get Priefer fired or stop other teams from being interested in hiring him. Now he wants to sue?

He wants to sue because the report is allegedly not going to be released. He said he'd reconsider litigation entirely if the report was released to the public.

What I am saying is testimony and eyewitness accounts aren't enough for in my opinion for this case unless some players came forth and said something.

Except that the report allegedly contains corroborating testimony by Vikings players that what Kluwe alleges was said was said.

That's like if someone told me they should round up all blacks and send them on an island and nuke them. There's no way I could keep my mouth shut. As for losing my job or creating a hostile working environment, I wouldn't care.

And that's your prerogative. But it's not out of the scope of the imagination that other people would be silent if it meant not being able to provide for their families. But it's really easy to say you'd do that in a hypothetical situation.

I wouldn't want to work for a team that discriminates against certain people. But I guess some people will put up with anything if they get paid enough.

Indeed. I'll admit that if I was making $3 million dollars/year and my boss said what Priefer allegedly said, I'd probably be upset but wouldn't want to jeopardize my career.

I think homophobia can be fixed. You have those people are homophobic but really don't know why, they just figure it's not normal because their never been exposed around that lifestyle yet. Then you have the people like me who are just completely against it and wish all people could be heterosexual regardless.

I think everyone can learn tolerance. Some have more desire or capacity to change than others.

[Funkytown]

Maybe he simply understands that to a lot of people it won't matter. They've already made up their minds. There's a man trying to end his career and there's an angry lynch mob not far behind, eager to condemn him on little more than the word of Chris Kluwe. Priefer has no motivation to help that process along.

So, these are good enough reasons to lie during an investigation? So, because people are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of what you say you might just lie...during an investigation? Yikes. I clearly value honesty a lot more than you do. Nothing irritates me more than a liar, especially when a person lies repeatedly over the same incident. Regardless of the excuse for lying, it's pretty lame. I don't know, I guess I'm different. I don't lie to cover my own butt. I'm pretty much honest to a fault, and that's just in my everyday life. If I was being investigated, I'd value my truth and integrity even more. Maybe I'm just a fool. lol. I can't get down with people lying and then others trying to make excuses for those lies. I don't believe I am assuming anything about him lying. He is a liar. And of course I am drawing my own conclusions based on that and assuming things. I can admit to that. If I'm wrong, I'll admit to it, unlike Mr. Man. Stay tuned.

[Mothman]

So, these are good enough reasons to lie during an investigation? So, because people are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of what you say you might just lie...during an investigation? Yikes. I clearly value honesty a lot more than you do.

You have stepped WAY over the line with that comment and I hope you'll apologize.

I didn't say it was okay to lie during an investigation and I didn't defend Priefer lying. I simply said it's not hard to understand why he'd lie. None of that has anything to do with how I would behave during an investigation or how much I value honesty and you sure as hell don't know me well enough to make a comment like "I clearly value honesty a lot more than you do". We weren't talking about what I value.

For what it's worth, I have actually testified in court during the course of a multi-million dollar lawsuit and I'm proud to say every word I said was the truth.

Nothing irritates me more than a liar, especially when a person lies repeatedly over the same incident. Regardless of the excuse for lying, it's pretty lame. I don't know, I guess I'm different. I don't lie to cover my own butt. I'm pretty much honest to a fault, and that's just in my everyday life. If I was being investigated, I'd value my truth and integrity even more. Maybe I'm just a fool. lol. I can't get down with people lying and then others trying to make excuses for those lies.

There's a difference between an excuse and a reason. I speculated about Priefer's reasons for lying. I didn't excuse his lies or approve of them.

I don't believe I am assuming anything about him lying. He is a liar.

He's allegedly (perhaps even "probably") a liar but there's still no evidence to support that. You seem convinced he's a liar because Chris Kluwe's lawyer said he knows "it has been corroborated that Priefer did, in fact, make the 'nuke the gay' statement by witnesses. We know Priefer initially denied any knowledge of the statement. When asked a second time, he again denied but until it was corroborated by witnesses, he finally relented, told the truth and admitted it."

Kluwe's lawyer is hardly an unbiased source and he's "confirming" information that is supposedly contained in a report and he and his client admit they haven't seen and are threatening to sue to obtain! I won't be surprised if what he said turns out to be true but I prefer to wait for the facts.

[NextQuestion]

Did my usual back-road digging on this today. Sounds like there is a good possibility the report is worse than just Priefer's "nuke the gays" comment. It's all vague but it appears that some other higher ups could be in hot water with this report.

[Mothman]

Did my usual back-road digging on this today.

What does that mean? Do you know someone who would have access to the report?

Sounds like there is a good possibility the report is worse than just Priefer's "nuke the gays" comment. It's all vague but it appears that some other higher ups could be in hot water with this report.

Well, according to Kluwe, that's the case. The Vikings seem to be in the process of determining just how much "hot water" is involved.