I can't speak for everyone else's religion but I am a Christian and I am not saying that true Christianity supports the hatred of anyone else or that Christianity supports discrimination against others. What I am saying is that biblically Homosexuality is a sin. Although it's no different than fornication or lieing. People that are intolerant of Homosexuality but accept other sins are hypocritical because the bible states that there is only one sin that is above all others and that the other sins are equal. So Homosexuality is no different religiously than fornication and accepting one and not the other is hypocrisy. The problem is religiously you are supposed to learn from your sins and not continue in sin and Homosexuality is a sin that you don't learn from you just continue to live in it but it's also not my place or anyone else's to judge others sins.
Either way it's not fair to people of religion to have to accept something they don't believe and if they don't they are labeled bigots. Just like it's not fair for people of Homosexuality to be viewed differently just because they are homosexual. You can't have it one way and not the other
People have a right to believe whatever they want, but we aren't talking about beliefs here, we're talking about actions. If one hates gays, Jews, etc. they should keep it to themselves, otherwise their employer has every right to fire them and society has every right to look down upon them, and deservingly so.
maembe wrote:Not exactly. Much like interracial marriage, it won't be a controversial topic for all that much longer. There is a very clear right and wrong on the issue, it's not like he's arguing about higher or lower taxes. Supporting equality as Kluwe did is not something that is unprofessional or reflects poorly on the team. In fact, it reflects positively on the team, and made Kluwe incredibly well-liked by people who don't even follow the NFL closely. The Vikings could use more people like Kluwe and less like Erin Henderson.
Deadspin and social media is a perfect place to take this. Kluwe has been great at drawing attention to discrimination here in MN and throughout the country, and the internet has been his primary channel. His goal was to make sure Priefer doesn't hold a job in the NFL again, and this is a perfect way to do that.
Deadspin was the perfect place to take it if Kluwe's goal was attention and revenge.
I've had a chance to sleep on this and the more I think about it, the more I disapprove of Kluwe choice to take the approach he did. As others have said, he comes off as a spiteful, immature attention-seeker. Sure, he's intelligent and articulate but those traits don't justify what he's done here and frankly, even if Priefer made the comments Kluwe accuses him of making, that doesn't justify it either. I think Kluwe has taken the wrong approach to this. If Priefer did what Kluwe accuses him of doing then it should have been addressed through appropriate channels and not through a site like Deadspin, which is practically the online sports equivalent of going to the the Sun or the National Enquirer.
Fighting against injustice and intolerance is an admirable quality but doing so in an immature, self-aggrandizing, manner is questionable and when it's wrapped up in what sure looks like a personal vendetta, it becomes something ugly too.
I think it's worth pointing out that Priefer has 1 of 32 jobs in the world. He is a supposed "up and comer" which puts him in line for another higher paying and higher profile 1 of 32 jobs in the world. Big money and probably a dream come true....he must be very excited at the prospect. Wouldn't any one of you feel that way if you were him?
Now you have some rockstar punter just destroying your dream with a keyboard. Are you just gonna let him? That's a huge crime....slander, defamation. Cripes, he could take Kluwe for everything he's got and more. If Priefer didn't say those things, it's a slam dunk case...right? Call the witnesses...take that replaceable piece of self-inflated crap into court and be a man.
Looks to me like Priefer is the person who should've kept his mouth shut. Haters gonna hate.
Nonsense. Priefer has no case for libel against Kluwe. Priefer is considered a public figure, for whom libel laws change dramatically. If Priefer were a common citizen, he would only have to prove that Kluwe's statements were false. But for a public figure like Priefer to prove libel, he has to not only show that Kluwe's comments were false, but ALSO that actual malice was the reason for stating the falsehood. Basically, he has to prove in a court of law that Kluwe's false comments were made for the sole purpose of smearing Mike Priefer. No matter what any of us believe about Kluwe's comments, that is very hard to prove in court.
No, instead of handling his perceived injustice like an adult, Chris Kluwe did what he always does. He took the juvenile route and went to Deadspin. Like a jilted kid in middle school, he spread rumors instead of confronting the person, or speaking with somebody who could actually address his concerns. Sounds an awful lot like "haters gonna hate."
maembe wrote:People have a right to believe whatever they want, but we aren't talking about beliefs here, we're talking about actions. If one hates gays, Jews, etc. they should keep it to themselves, otherwise their employer has every right to fire them and society has every right to look down upon them, and deservingly so.
You make a great point here. You're absolutely correct.
So tell me ... what proof has Chris Kluwe offered that Mike Priefer actually said those things?
This is "he said, he said." There's no proof. At this point, the evidence is actually on Priefer's side. Individuals have spoken up in his defense that it never happened. No one has backed Kluwe. All Kluwe has offered is, "Everybody heard him." Well, prove it, Chris, and I'll believe you. Let's hear from one of the "everybody," preferably one of the "everybody" who doesn't also have an agenda or an axe to grind against the Vikings (although at this point, he doesn't even have THAT much).
maembe wrote:Not exactly. Much like interracial marriage, it won't be a controversial topic for all that much longer. There is a very clear right and wrong on the issue, it's not like he's arguing about higher or lower taxes. Supporting equality as Kluwe did is not something that is unprofessional or reflects poorly on the team. In fact, it reflects positively on the team, and made Kluwe incredibly well-liked by people who don't even follow the NFL closely. The Vikings could use more people like Kluwe and less like Erin Henderson.
Deadspin and social media is a perfect place to take this. Kluwe has been great at drawing attention to discrimination here in MN and throughout the country, and the internet has been his primary channel. His goal was to make sure Priefer doesn't hold a job in the NFL again, and this is a perfect way to do that.
Oh my gosh, did you just say that?
I thought the goal was supposed to be to stand up for gay rights.
Powers points out the inherent hypocrisy of Kluwe waiting until now, but if Kluwe did take the moral stand while he was with the Vikings, you know as well as I do that he would not have punted for any team in the NFL again.
Sure, Kluwe comes off as spiteful and the timing is weird, but I do believe it happened.
He probably went to deadspin with this because no other media outlet would touch it. It is a one-source story and real journalists would never run something as inflammatory like that without a second source. And I'm not surprised that other players are now saying it never happened. They still want to work in the NFL.
maembe wrote:
People have a right to believe whatever they want, but we aren't talking about beliefs here, we're talking about actions. If one hates gays, Jews, etc. they should keep it to themselves, otherwise their employer has every right to fire them and society has every right to look down upon them, and deservingly so.
Then Pfeifer, Spielman, and Frazier have a right not to believe in Homosexuality. Other than what Kluwe has said what have any one of them done to show they hate or openly discriminate against homosexuals? Not believing in something is different than hating it. Also, Kluwe obviously hates Pfeifer and those that don't believe in gay marriage, example being the profanity laced letter he sent the politician that tried to silence the Baltimore player who was advocating for gay marriage so should he just keep that to himself or does it apply in one situation and not the other?
Isn't looking down on someone that doesn't believe what you believe just a continuous perpetuation of the same problem?
Last edited by MrPurplenGold on Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
VikeMike wrote:Powers points out the inherent hypocrisy of Kluwe waiting until now, but if Kluwe did take the moral stand while he was with the Vikings, you know as well as I do that he would not have punted for any team in the NFL again.
Sure, Kluwe comes off as spiteful and the timing is weird, but I do believe it happened.
He probably went to deadspin with this because no other media outlet would touch it. It is a one-source story and real journalists would never run something as inflammatory like that without a second source. And I'm not surprised that other players are now saying it never happened. They still want to work in the NFL.
I think what powers is trying to say is if Kluwe is truly a front runner in the advocacy in gay rights why did he only stand up to blatant bigotry when it was convenient to him?
I think it would have been more difficult to fire him if he had exposed this bigotry when he was still with the Vikings. It would have looked terrible on the organization if he exposes someone as a so called bigot and then suddenly he's fired.
VikeMike wrote:Powers points out the inherent hypocrisy of Kluwe waiting until now, but if Kluwe did take the moral stand while he was with the Vikings, you know as well as I do that he would not have punted for any team in the NFL again.
I'm not convinced that's true. If he had handled the issue by writing a piece for Deadspin, I'm guessing you're right but if he had addressed the problem by going to someone higher up in the organization, perhaps it simply would have been addressed and solved.
He probably went to Deadspin with this because no other media outlet would touch it.
I doubt it, Mike. He has a prior relationship with Deadspin and probably knew they would jump at the chance to publish it. The approach he took is consistent with his past M.O.
It is a one-source story and real journalists would never run something as inflammatory like that without a second source.
That's correct but Kluwe claims he has witnesses who can confirm his claims and many reporters have no problem at all quoting an anonymous source that "is close to the team", "a former teammate", "close to the situation:, etc. If Kluwe's claims are accurate, then it's possible a reporter could have investigated his claims and found confirmation of his story.
And I'm not surprised that other players are now saying it never happened. They still want to work in the NFL.
... or maybe it never happened... or it's been exaggerated... or the players who are speaking up never heard what Kluwe did and are simply speaking to their own experiences with Priefer.
Valhalla wrote:It also came out, Vikings management may not have objected to Kluwe having his right to free speech but the way he was saying things as shown by his letter to the Maryland Politician Emmet Burns. http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-m ... porting-it
I don't know myself because I believe I heard or saw some of Kluwe's commercials, nothing wrong with that but if he addressed politicians and cussed, this might have been what Vikings management objected to. Not the message but the style.
That's definitely possible.
Thanks for the info about the radio interview as well. Walsh's support of Priefer definitely doesn't help Kluwe's case much because of all the players on the team last year, Walsh seems one the most likely to have been around when the alleged comments were made. Long snapper Cullen Loeffler is probably the other player most likely to have been present. Has he said anything about this yet?
There are numerous things that bother me about this, and especially about the reaction to it.
Chris Kluwe appears to be a highly-intelligent, thoughtful individual (I say appears because I do not know him personally and rely solely upon the perceptions gleaned from what he has made public over time.). That alone, in my opinion, allows me to lend creedence to what he related in his article. He does not seem to be the kind of person to go off half-cocked, or to print something he knows to be untrue, libelous or slanderous. While he is prone to utilizing profanity and vociferously opposing anything he views as oppressive, I have yet to read anything he has written which is a lie. If what he wrote about Mike Priefer is untrue, he stands to face multiple serious lawsuits based upon it. I have a difficult time reconciling his intelligence and media savvy with the idea that what he wrote is wholly or even partially untrue. It just does not pass the litmus test of credibility for me. He went to great lengths to place in quotes the things he remembers verbatim, and to make clear that the rest was paraphrased or based on memories written down soon after the fact.
But what about the players defending Priefer? So far, I have seen Harrison Smith, Jerome Felton, Blair Walsh and Jeff Locke come out and say that they never heard Priefer say any of those things. Of those 4 players, the only one that would have been in the meetings at which Priefer is alleged to have used derogatory language was Blair Walsh. Smith and Felton were not special teams players and Locke was not yet with the team. I have no problem with any of them defending Priefer, and will not speculate on whether they are being truthful or not.
What was Kluwe's motivation? He plainly states that he does not want to see Mike Priefer get a job as head coach. Whether you agree that was sufficient motivation to write the article is debatable. Some have claimed that this is nothing but sour grapes, or worse, shameless self-promotion.
Based on statistics, Chris Kluwe has a compelling case that his performance had not, in fact, deteriorated. His gross punt average in 2012 was the third best of his career. His touchback percentage was the lowest of his career. The return average on his punts in 2011 was 12.4 yards, which supports Kluwe's contention that Priefer felt the coverage "sucked" and that Kluwe needed to addd hangtime at the expense of distance. In 2012, the return average was down to 8.3 yards. Kluwe's net punt average in 2012 was the highest of his career. The one place he struggled was punts inside the 20 - he had the second lowest percentage of his career. However, could that have been a result of an emphasis on directional punting at the expense of Kluwe's strength, power? Possibly. Truth be told, it does seem that diminished performance seems to be a very shaky reason to let Kluwe go.
But why did other teams not sign him? The NFL is an incredibly insular boy's club, of this there is no denial. Oakland had a young punter who simply beat Kluwe out of a job. However, it is not out of the realm of possibility that other teams were not interested in a highly opinionated, non-conformist, activist punter. They would have issues with those characteristics in a star player, much less a mere punter.
While Kluwe is most definitely adept at self-promotion, I have never seen an incident where he promoted himself to the detriment of others. Some point to his open letter to Emmet Burns (the legislator in Maryland) as an incidence of self-promotion. I see it as an emotional, angry letter castigating someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, but has decided to ignore it. I do not believe his anger was misplaced. I, personally, would have written it in less inflammatory terms, however, the letter was effective and did achieve its intended effect. I am left to wonder if a calm, professional letter would have achieved the same result. That is media savvy, not self-promotion. The times he has actually promoted his own interests have been on his own time. Did he benefit from the higher profile he enjoyed as a professional football player? Absolutely. But at no time do I recall him promoting his band or his personal interests when in his role as a team member of the Minnesota Vikings.
I am sincerely curious as to why Kluwe has been characterized as a "jerk" and an "a**hole" by members of this community. I understand that many take issue with his approach (even I cringe at his overuse of profanity), and there are some who do not agree with his stance on gay rights or other issues. But what leads you to believe that he is a jerk? Is it that he does not adhere to a specific set of socially acceptable norms with regards to how he voices his opinion? Or is it something else? I ask that you please indulge me and enlighten me, because I honestly do not see it.
If Kluwe's story is correct, then it is not inaccurate to characterize both Frazier's and Spielman's requests that Kluwe stop speaking out as cowardice. Regardless of where the pressure on them was coming, they chose to succumb to that pressure rather than support the Constitutional rights of free speech. Now, is Kluwe a coward for not coming out with this earlier? Possibly. However, his concern was not that Priefer holds hateful opinions, but he was concerned that Priefer's hateful opinions would receive a larger audience were he promoted to head coach. Should he have stood up to Priefer at that time? It would have been much braver to do so. But how easy is it to get in the face of the man who holds your career and financial well-being in his hands? We all want to say we would have the strength to do it, but I for one am certain I would have a difficult time making such a decision.
Let's be clear, Kluwe is no amazing hero. He is a man who supports gay rights and wants to prevent someone he believes holds hateful opinions from achieving a position of increased influence.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Nonsense. Priefer has no case for libel against Kluwe. Priefer is considered a public figure, for whom libel laws change dramatically. If Priefer were a common citizen, he would only have to prove that Kluwe's statements were false. But for a public figure like Priefer to prove libel, he has to not only show that Kluwe's comments were false, but ALSO that actual malice was the reason for stating the falsehood. Basically, he has to prove in a court of law that Kluwe's false comments were made for the sole purpose of smearing Mike Priefer. No matter what any of us believe about Kluwe's comments, that is very hard to prove in court.
No, instead of handling his perceived injustice like an adult, Chris Kluwe did what he always does. He took the juvenile route and went to Deadspin. Like a jilted kid in middle school, he spread rumors instead of confronting the person, or speaking with somebody who could actually address his concerns. Sounds an awful lot like "haters gonna hate."
The malice is there in Kluwe's own words!
If there's one thing I hope to achieve from sharing this story, it's to make sure that Mike Priefer never holds a coaching position again in the NFL, and ideally never coaches at any level.
He's begging Priefer to take legal action. It's the only way Kluwe will be able to prove his story. He stated that the sole reason for coming out now with this story is to make certain that Priefer never gets another job coaching PERIOD.
He's stated that he has witnesses to corroborate his claims.....so, make him produce them. If no one backs up Kluwe's tale, he's the one guilty of a crime. He is confronting Priefer...right there in the public secter...he's confronting Priefer in front of the whole damn world and he's doing so because the NFL has a huge problem with sweeping crap under the carpet. Like how for decades they neglected ex-players and how they tried to put a muzzle on the facts about concussions just to name a couple. As far as I'm concerned Kluwe's reputation for honesty far exceeds that of the NFL.
All this discontent and focus about the way Kluwe "handled" this is suspicious IMO. Kluwe clearly doesn't give a damn about letting anyone but the public address his concerns. Calling him names doesn't do anything to absolve Priefer.
He is treating the bigot like the bigot treats his victims....you may not like it it or approve, but it is clearly an effective method. Ask any gay person how it feels to be spurned by society. Or to realize someone won't hire you for the way you are.
There are more gay people and bigots in the world than there are Chris Kluwes, that's for damn sure.
Right or wrong Kluwe has made an example out of one of the good ole boys in brazen fashion.
People who behave as nazis do, and advocate for other whole segments of society to be rounded up and extinguished should be exposed and shunned.
Yeah, Joe, I hate intolerance and I don't think religion is any excuse.
just destroying your dream with a keyboard. Are you just gonna let him? That's a huge crime....slander, defamation. Cripes, he could take Kluwe for everything he's got and more. If Priefer didn't say those things, it's a slam dunk case...right? Call the witnesses...take that replaceable piece of self-inflated crap into court and be a man.
