Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[dead_poet]

Too late now. Sad truth is, once you get labeled as a bigot, you'll never fully be able to wipe that off of your name. That's the unfortunate part about this, and regardless of what you think of the situation and the people involved, you can't deny that Kluwe handled the entire thing very, very poorly.

What's the appropriate way to handle it?

[thatguy]

What's the appropriate way to handle it?

Talk to the guy paying the bills who openly supported his outspokenness when it first became an issue (Zygi Wilf). Pretty simple in my mind.

[PurpleHalo]

He's barely a football player, like Peyton manning once said about Vanderjacht he's an idiot kicker, well in this case a punter.

[Mothman]

What's the appropriate way to handle it?

Well, it's certainly not by writing a potentially slanderous piece for Deadspin.

Taking his objections to ownership (who sounded sympathetic to Kluwe's beliefs) at the time or even after he was released might have been a good idea. He could also have pursued legal action or approached a credible journalist with a good reputation, someone who might have been able to dig into the story, find some independent confirmation of the events described and report on what happened. He could have approached the league or the player's association with his grievances.

[Mothman]

Talk to the guy paying the bills who openly supported his outspokenness when it first became an issue (Zygi Wilf). Pretty simple in my mind.

Oops! You posted that as I was typing a reply but your response was the first thing that came to my mind too.

[dead_poet]

Well, it's certainly not by writing a potentially slanderous piece for Deadspin.

Taking his objections to ownership (who sounded sympathetic to Kluwe's beliefs) at the time or even after he was released might have been a good idea. He could also have pursued legal action or approached a credible journalist with a good reputation, someone who might have been able to dig into the story, find some independent confirmation of the events described and report on what happened. He could have approached the league or the player's association with his grievances.

Sure. That makes sense. Though could he have done this and still had a realistic chance of keeping/finding a job? Or would those actions have proven counterproductive and made him even more untouchable?

[saint33]

Suppose someone accused you or someone you love of something similar tomorrow. Would you feel the same way then?

The "court of public opinion" is no court at all. Accusations aren't evidence and nobody should just be assumed guilty of something based on nothing more than one person's account. In the court of public opinion, a person can be accused of a sex crime (or something equally heinous) they never committed and then have their lives torn apart, even if they did absolutely nothing to deserve such a fate.
I applaud that too but that's not what I see Kluwe doing here. I see an ex-employee making some pretty strong, nasty accusations about his former employers. As I said earlier, it's hard to imagine a more biased source of information. We have the story as Kluwe perceived it but that doesn't mean we have a complete or accurate story.

I understand what you're saying, but in this case I have a hard time giving Priefer the benefit of doubt. Unless you're suggesting Kluwe completely fabricated the words that Priefer said, there's no other way to perceive the story. And with all the information we know about the situation and Kluwe himself before hand, I think it's safe to assume Kluwe is providing facts. Especially since Kluwe went out of his way in the article not to make direct accusations about things that could be left up to interpretation. He stated the quotes as facts, and only stated his opinion about what the intentions of the others involved were.

[PurpleKoolaid]

Well, it's certainly not by writing a potentially slanderous piece for Deadspin.

Taking his objections to ownership (who sounded sympathetic to Kluwe's beliefs) at the time or even after he was released might have been a good idea. He could also have pursued legal action or approached a credible journalist with a good reputation, someone who might have been able to dig into the story, find some independent confirmation of the events described and report on what happened. He could have approached the league or the player's association with his grievances.

100% right.

I know I am not known as a fan of Fraizer, but he is a very decent human being. And to tie him, and to hint at labeling him, as Kluwe did, is beyond rude. Fraizer has too much class to reply to this (at least I don't think he will) but I wish his lawyer would.

[mondry]

I understand what you're saying, but in this case I have a hard time giving Priefer the benefit of doubt. Unless you're suggesting Kluwe completely fabricated the words that Priefer said, there's no other way to perceive the story. And with all the information we know about the situation and Kluwe himself before hand, I think it's safe to assume Kluwe is providing facts. Especially since Kluwe went out of his way in the article not to make direct accusations about things that could be left up to interpretation. He stated the quotes as facts, and only stated his opinion about what the intentions of the others involved were.

Yeah no kidding, I'm surprised their's so much support for a bigot that's being exposed and is passing his crappy ideals on to his son and in his place of work. Seems pretty straight forward to me, the dirty laundry got out. In cases like this, people like Priefer think they're IN THE RIGHT to talk about others that way so I have no trouble believing it was, what he banked on was it never leaving the locker room. Unfortunately he picked the wrong adversary which is kind of ironic given WHY Kluwe was making head lines anyway as an outspoken activist.

[Eli]

Interesting timing, too, don't you think? Probably for two reasons:

1. Kluwe has given up hope that he'll punt again in the NFL. Publishing this prior to now would almost certainly have been the final nail. Now he's burning his bridges because he doesn't care any more.

2. With the dismissal of Leslie Frazier, there's a good chance that Mike Priefer will be looking for work soon. So this comes out at a time when Kluwe can best spite Priefer, perhaps even hoping to pressure Spielman or the Wilfs into firing him. Now that we've seen more clearly how Spielman's brain operates, it may have exactly the opposite effect.

[The Breeze]

Suppose someone accused you or someone you love of something similar tomorrow. Would you feel the same way then?

The "court of public opinion" is no court at all. Accusations aren't evidence and nobody should just be assumed guilty of something based on nothing more than one person's account. In the court of public opinion, a person can be accused of a sex crime (or something equally heinous) they never committed and then have their lives torn apart, even if they did absolutely nothing to deserve such a fate.
The

I applaud that too but that's not what I see Kluwe doing here. I see an ex-employee making some pretty strong, nasty accusations about his former employers. As I said earlier, it's hard to imagine a more biased source of information. We have the story as Kluwe perceived it but that doesn't mean we have a complete or accurate story.

Intolerance is all about the court of public opinion. You can't legislate your way out it. People need to learn to govern themselves accordingly. We are not talking about a sex crime and I'm not naive to how innocent people are wrongfully convicted.....I seriously doubt Kluwe is either. Which is what makes his assertion so compelling. In this particular circle we are swimming in, he is a fairly well known commodity and is quite respected for at being unabashedly candid.

I know very little about Priefer....Kluwe knows him a lot better than any of us here.

You see it the way you see it for now....a disgruntled employee. I accept that.

I see it as a person with a historical record of championing a social cause, after being invited to do so, waiting for the right moment to expose bigoted behavior in what has been endlessly deemed a privileged workplace.

I have had several friends and aquaintances exposed to bigotry and bullying but none that have been victim of some elaborate character assassination. I believe it has more to do with how those people conduct their affairs rather than just being lucky never to have crossed paths with someone as malevolent and selfcentred as Chris Kluwe. I also have no problem being biased towards bigots and their propaganda....I think they represent a huge problem and are more the norm than the exception. That has been my experience.

Where there is smoke there is fire IMO......it would be incredibly stupid of Kluwe to publicly slander a former supervisor in such fashion. It puts more than his NFL career at risk. I don't buy that he is that naive....especially after waiting so long to express himself on the matter.

[dead_poet]

#Vikings release statement on Chris Kluwe. Say today was first time they heard of allegations. Take very seriously, will review the matter. "Vikings ownership supports and promotes tolerance, including on the subject of marriage equality."

"Any notion that Chris was released from our football team due to his stance on marriage equality is entirely inaccurate and inconsistent with team policy. Chris was released strictly based on his football performance."

[The Breeze]

Too late now. Sad truth is, once you get labeled as a bigot, you'll never fully be able to wipe that off of your name. That's the unfortunate part about this, and regardless of what you think of the situation and the people involved, you can't deny that Kluwe handled the entire thing very, very poorly.

I think he handled it in straight up just desserts fashion. Stick it to the man.

[Mothman]

Sure. That makes sense. Though could he have done this and still had a realistic chance of keeping/finding a job? Or would those actions have proven counterproductive and made him even more untouchable?

I don't know but those are certainly fair questions.

I understand what you're saying, but in this case I have a hard time giving Priefer the benefit of doubt. Unless you're suggesting Kluwe completely fabricated the words that Priefer said, there's no other way to perceive the story. And with all the information we know about the situation and Kluwe himself before hand, I think it's safe to assume Kluwe is providing facts. Especially since Kluwe went out of his way in the article not to make direct accusations about things that could be left up to interpretation. He stated the quotes as facts, and only stated his opinion about what the intentions of the others involved were.

The reason there's no other way to perceive the story is because Kluwe's story is all we have. There's no compelling reason to assume he's providing facts. There's no real context here beyond what Kluwe himself has provided and what was reported in the media at the time all of this supposedly occurred. None of us know Kluwe personally but he seems like a person with integrity. I suspect he actually is such a person and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that his comments about Priefer were on the mark or at least close to it because people with nasty attitudes and unprofessional behavior certainly exist. However, the fact remains, we have one perspective from one individual and that individual has every reason to be biased. That doesn't mean he is biased, wrong, lying or fabricating but when we start taking the kind of accusations he's making at face value and assuming they're facts, we start down a very slippery slope.

The general public isn't required to adhere to the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard that our court system (thankfully) must uphold but it's still a good policy. Not one of us would want to be wrongly accused of something that could cost us our jobs and severely damage our reputations. Not one of us would want to be publicly labeled a coward for simply doing our job, as Spielman and Frazier may have been doing. The nature of Kluwe's accusations make it hard to give Priefer the benefit of the doubt but it's precisely in such situations that the benefit of the doubt is needed most.

I don't want to live in a society where all someone has to do is point and say "witch" and the stake and matches come out. We need to be better than that.

[dead_poet]

Full statement:

The Minnesota Vikings were made aware of Chris Kluwe’s allegations for the first time today. We take them very seriously and will thoroughly review this matter.

As an organization, the Vikings consistently strive to create a supportive, respectful and accepting environment for all of our players, coaches and front office personnel. We do not tolerate discrimination at any level.

The team has long respected our players’ and associates’ individual rights, and, as Chris specifically stated, Vikings ownership supports and promotes tolerance, including on the subject of marriage equality. Because he was identified with the Vikings, Chris was asked to be respectful while expressing his opinions. Team ownership and management also repeatedly emphasized to Chris that the Vikings would not impinge on his right to express his views.

Any notion that Chris was released from our football team due to his stance on marriage equality is entirely inaccurate and inconsistent with team policy. Chris was released strictly based on his football performance.

We will have further comment at the appropriate time.