Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[The Breeze]

There are numerous things that bother me about this, and especially about the reaction to it.






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.

Insightful take, Brian....especially about the reaction here.

I would suggest that there are probably some people out there who find Kluwe to be a hero.

[MrPurplenGold]

Yeah, Joe, I hate intolerance and I don't think religion is any excuse.

Not agreeing with a person's lifestyle does not make them intolerant.

And with those views you are the same as the people you hate. Your intolerance of people's religious views continues to perpetuate the cycle of intolerance instead of breaking the cycle you allow it to continue. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." MLK

[dead_poet]

Tom Powers has an interesting take on this:

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_248 ... little-too

Thanks for the link. This part resonated:

You have to admire his tenacity. But although he had no trouble calling out others for perpetuating injustice, or at least ignoring it, Kluwe opted to remain silent when, by his own account, injustice was happening right in front of him.

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with how he ultimately handled this. There were other ways at the time he could've handled this (and probably should have) prior to taking this course of action. I do understand not wanting to ruffle the feathers of his employers when it became clear his job wasn't on the most solid footing, but it does seem a bit hypocritical to call someone a coward and then wait until you're already out the door before bringing up the alleged injustice/behavior (on the very perspective you're attempting to change). Or is that simply attempting to hold him to a higher standard? If we were in the same situation, would any of us have had the courage to come forward? Is it necessarily wrong or bad to have kept silent to keep employed? Or do we expect Kluwe to throw caution to the wind and be the person we perceive him to be (arguably the person that he makes himself out to be), consequences be damned?

I will say that he does have a tendency to support the philosophy "the end justifies the means", meaning, had his letter to Mr. Burns been not nearly as "colorful", I absolutely believe it would not have generated nearly the attention as it did. It wouldn't have went viral. It would have barely been a blurb. That's not to say what he did was right, necessarily, but it did bring attention to the issue (and, yes, to him, though I still think that was not necessarily the intent as much as it was a byproduct) and may well have been largely responsible for Minnesota voting to legalize gay marriage. His style generates attention. Attention begets the spotlight and a louder voice. As much as it pains me to say it, by words and style alone, he's not all that different than Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter (obviously the message is as different as the perspective).

It's hard to not admire his passion and dedication to equality, even if his methods and language may be questionable.

It was clear even while Kluwe was here there wasn't a great working relationship with Priefer. I'm starting to believe that Priefer may have made the alleged comments more out of spite and to get a rise out of Kluwe. It didn't sound like they were part of his vocabulary or even brought up until Kluwe started being a minor celebrity and began rubbing him the wrong way through his resistance to fly under the radar (as had been suggested by not only Priefer, but Frazier and Spielman, according to Kluwe). That's not a free pass for Priefer having said those things (assuming he did), but it stands to reason that could be a potential motive. But regardless, if Kluwe had a problem with Priefer (especially after the putting the gays on an island and nuking it comment), he should have brought it to the attention of the NFLPA and Frazier/Spielman. A logical first step. By not doing so, it really questions his motives and comes across as having an axe to grind with someone with whom he did not get along (or perhaps not share the same world views). With several current and former players coming to the defense of Priefer, Kluwe is finding himself on an island (though it would be interesting to know if the guys defending Priefer got along with Kluwe and if they, perhaps, did not share his world views). He'd better hope the few players he said were present during these comments will corroborate his story.

This whole thing is leaving me with mixed feelings and a bitter taste in my mouth. The topic here has shifted from equality to "reasons why I was cut."

This article written by Siefert at the time of Kluwe's release is important to revisit. I think it's pretty accurate.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... f-advocacy

[smoothoperator]

so on KFAN kluwe says he absolutely does not want to ruin pfeifers career, yet his article clearly states the opposite. he acts as if he is some super activist, yet he could not stand up for what he believes in and talk to pfeifer in private or in front of others to voice his disagreement? thats what a man would do, confront pfeifer and talk it out, not hide in the shadows like a coward until long after it has past. kluwe is a coward and a phony. clearly kluwe has other motives here.

kluwe also gained 20,000 twitter followers yesterday and now is promoting his band on twitter, which he has never done before...what a clown.

[dead_poet]

kluwe also gained 20,000 twitter followers yesterday and now is promoting his band on twitter, which he has never done before...what a clown.

He has promoted his band on Twitter for years.

[smoothoperator]

He has promoted his band on Twitter for years.

his text next to his username said the same generic message for years, now it promotes his band. i know hes tweeted about his band before, just seems odd.

[Mothman]

Not agreeing with a person's lifestyle does not make them intolerant.

And with those views you are the same as the people you hate. Your intolerance of people's religious views continues to perpetuate the cycle of intolerance instead of breaking the cycle you allow it to continue. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." MLK

That's a great quote.

[The Breeze]

Not agreeing with a person's lifestyle does not make them intolerant.

And with those views you are the same as the people you hate. Your intolerance of people's religious views continues to perpetuate the cycle of intolerance instead of breaking the cycle you allow it to continue. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." MLK

I don't go around pretending everyone has to believe what I do. That's what tolerance is. I am totally down with people who are not cool with things because of their religion or whatever.....but to suggest that someone should "burn in hell"...or be put on an island and nuked because they don't like the way someone else is made, crosses a line that society draws. So, does burning women at the stake, or attempted genocide of native people etc.

I understand your point about the cycle....and to be totally honest, I don't practice hatred of any kind. Not even Packer fans. I was being dramatic for Joe.
I think think groupthink mentality is what keeps us in the darkness....the labeling of people and such, makes it safe soil for hatred.

If anything positive is to come out of an ugly incident such as the one we are all discussing, I would hope it would be a dialogue trained toward understanding and accepting one anothers beliefs and fears without condemning them and negating them.

My comments on this thread in regards to Priefer have not been in the vein of viewing him as an individual but as a public symbol for what I consider to be a very big problem globally, and one of many contradictions thriving in the NFL.

If I actually had the chance to communicate directly with him, I'd be very interested to know more about his ideals.

Just like I am tempted by certain peeps reactions here, to question them a bit further about the source of their discontent....but it leads to topics those in charge have deemed forbidden to discuss in plain sight.

I suppose it could be done easily in PMs.

[Mothman]

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with how he ultimately handled this. There were other ways at the time he could've handled this (and probably should have) prior to taking this course of action. I do understand not wanting to ruffle the feathers of his employers when it became clear his job wasn't on the most solid footing, but it does seem a bit hypocritical to call someone a coward and then wait until you're already out the door before bringing up the alleged injustice/behavior (on the very perspective you're attempting to change). Or is that simply attempting to hold him to a higher standard? If we were in the same situation, would any of us have had the courage to come forward? Is it necessarily wrong or bad to have kept silent to keep employed? Or do we expect Kluwe to throw caution to the wind and be the person we perceive him to be (arguably the person that he makes himself out to be), consequences be damned?

Those are fair questions. I'm betting some of us would have had the courage to come forward in that situation but there's no way to know with certainty. I don't think we're attempting to hold him to a higher standard here. I think people are just wondering why he chose to take the approach he did and why he chose to wait and do it now. I realize he addressed the latter and it seems likely, given his stated goal, that he held out until the moment where he felt he could do the most damage to Priefer's career. That might be smart in a strategic sense but it strikes me as less than admirable.

Did Kluwe, at any point in his statement, say that he even challenged Priefer regarding his anti-gay comments? Did he ask him to stop making them? I haven't re-read Kluwe's statement since reading it yesterday but I don't recall reading that he asked his position coach to stop making anti-gay comments even once. I'd appreciate it if someone could correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I didn't quote your entire post but it was a great read. Thanks for taking the time to compose it.

[The Breeze]

Those are fair questions. I'm betting some of us would have had the courage to come forward in that situation but there's no way to know with certainty. I don't think we're attempting to hold him to a higher standard here. I think people are just wondering why he chose to take the approach he did and why he chose to wait and do it now. I realize he addressed the latter and it seems likely, given his stated goal, that he held out until the moment where he felt he could do the most damage to Priefer's career. That might be smart in a strategic sense but it strikes me as less than admirable.

Did Kluwe, at any point in his statement, say that he even challenged Priefer regarding his anti-gay comments? Did he ask him to stop making them? I haven't re-read Kluwe's statement since reading it yesterday but I don't recall reading that he asked his position coach to stop making anti-gay comments even once. I'd appreciate it if someone could correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I didn't quote your entire post but it was a great read. Thanks for taking the time to compose it.

He did not challenge Priefer. IMO he seemed a bit intimidated by the whole thing in regards to his actual authority to make any demands from his superior. I'm speculating.

I can only wonder at how clear cut the channels are for these kinds of grievances in the NFL. The whole Incognito episode just revealed a big pool of murky water IMO. And as Cal vike has been suggesting, this episode should work to further delineate more productive means for specific complaints to be addressed.

I agree that Kluwes means are not quite admirable......but I am fascinated by the whole thing just the same. I'm certain that this will create some changes....looks like some people might be getting scorched along the way.

They do have the means to reinvent themselves. I see a big lack of courage taking place. It's morbidly entertaining and a very compelling unfolding of an extremely divisive social dynamic.

[dead_poet]

I realize he addressed the latter and it seems likely, given his stated goal, that he held out until the moment where he felt he could do the most damage to Priefer's career. That might be smart in a strategic sense but it strikes me as less than admirable.

I suppose it's admirable if you look at it through the lens that Kluwe is, meaning he doesn't want this guy to spread his message of intolerance to others.

Did Kluwe, at any point in his statement, say that he even challenged Priefer regarding his anti-gay comments? Did he ask him to stop making them? I haven't re-read Kluwe's statement since reading it yesterday but I don't recall reading that he asked his position coach to stop making anti-gay comments even once. I'd appreciate it if someone could correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Kind of. From his article:

I tried to laugh these off while also responding with the notion that perhaps they were human beings who deserved to be treated as human beings. Mike Priefer also said on multiple occasions that I would wind up burning in hell with the gays, and that the only truth was Jesus Christ and the Bible. He said all this in a semi-joking tone, and I responded in kind, as I felt a yelling match with my coach over human rights would greatly diminish my chances of remaining employed. I felt uncomfortable each time Mike Priefer said these things. After all, he was directly responsible for reviewing my job performance, but I hoped that after the vote concluded in Minnesota his behavior would taper off and eventually stop.

He didn't write anything specific to asking him to stop or approaching him after he allegedly made the "island" speech.

I didn't quote your entire post but it was a great read. Thanks for taking the time to compose it.

Thanks Jim.

[NextQuestion]

lol at guy who said "homophobes aren't bad people". Yes...yes...you are. Racists are bad people. People with intolerance that ties into hate is bad.

I may not hate homophobic people but I sure do think they are extremely behind on the times and misinformed.

[Raptorman]

I do have to commend those posting on this subject, you have done a great job of not making it personal and walking that fine line in not getting the thread locked.

[saint33]

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.

very well said!

[MrPurplenGold]

lol at guy who said "homophobes aren't bad people". Yes...yes...you are. Racists are bad people. People with intolerance that ties into hate is bad.

I may not hate homophobic people but I sure do think they are extremely behind on the times and misinformed.

What do you define as a homophobe? Is a homephobe someone that doesn't believe in gay marriage or do you have to openly discriminate against homosexuals?