Moderator: Moderators
Charchian did and Kluwe obviously thinks so.Eli wrote:Makes sense. But who says it was too far?
I think it's all about context. I've heard some things in work environments that would sound absolutely unforgivable if taken out of context but because the people present all understood who was saying it, why it was said and what they meant, the comments were harmless, sometimes even hilarious.Not if they don't feel as strongly about the gay issue. I know plenty of people who wouldn't take offense to such comments--and I know of plenty who would. And didn't Kluwe say that people came up to him and expressed that it "wasn't cool" or whatever? How is that "not having a problem with it"? Aside from those in the room, I'm sure others heard about it, and maybe some of those are the ones who came up to Kluwe to say, "Not cool, bro". But, regardless, there were others who heard it, as well as, others who weren't too fond of that statement when they heard about it. But we're shocked this didn't come out sooner? How are we shocked by that? Those guys wanted to remain in that locker room, "not be a distraction", and keep those checks coming in. Not that too terribly hard to figure out.80 PurplePride 84 wrote: Kluwe said others were around when he said this. So if it was really bigotry at work I'm sure more than just Kluwe would have a problem with it.
I don't think anybody missed it but the players supporting Priefer haven't just been talking about his treatment of them. They've been talking about his conduct as a coach/professional.Funkytown wrote: Am I missing something here? Or am I pulling a Kluwe and "adding to the story"? Without reading it again, the way I remember it is, these comments did happen more than once. But Kluwe didn't ALWAYS have a problem with Priefer and his comments. It wasn't until Kluwe started speaking out and being active about it. Oh, "and being a big distraction".
So, why WOULD Walsh, Locke, Smith, etc. have problems with Priefer? Why would he disrespect them and lump them up with "the gays"? Were they active along with Kluwe? Were they outspoken with their support of the gay community? Were they openly gay? WHY WOULD THE GAY THING COME UP WITH OTHER PEOPLE?!?!? Kluwe, himself, said it wasn't always an issue. Priefer started up with the comments after he knew of Kluwe's feelings and activism on the topic. So, now we should all be shocked and surprised "other players have no problem with Priefer"? That, to me, is common sense. Confused on how people missed all of this.
Goading people has been a motivational technique used by people from coaches to drill sergeants for a long, long time. We're not talking about a white collar office environment here.Regardless, as other people have said, joke or not, it's NOT funny. I don't believe it was a joke, though. On what level is that funny? That's only funny to really sick people. And is it really appropriate at a workplace? No. It was said to taunt Kluwe and his views. Real professional.
Apparently we have a fan trying to be a comedian too.And for the love of all things purple, can coaches please start focusing on football? No wonder we can't win games. We have coaches trying to be "comedians" apparently. Fail.
For some reason I picture you saying this in a space fighter while flying the trench on the surface of the death starRaptorman wrote: Stay on subject, stay on subject.
And Kluwe has made similar comments, until his "gay activism" started...so? That's my point. Others shouldn't have had issues with the dude because Kluwe didn't either until "his distractions" started. That's why I'm not surprised by their comments--and I'm also not surprised Kluwe was treated differently from the others. That's why I say he was taunting Kluwe and "making it about him and the gays." Not funny or cool.Mothman wrote: I don't think anybody missed it but the players supporting Priefer haven't just been talking about his treatment of them. They've been talking about his conduct as a coach/professional.
If Kluwe was the only person in the room who thought it was too far, then was it? I say no. At that point the statement becomes one of harassment, not homophobia, yet Kluwe is clearly claiming the latter. If Priefer was harassing Kluwe it's a much different news story, isn't it? And Frankly, one that I doubt think anyone would give a damn about. Kluwe knows how to make headlines.Mothman wrote: Charchian did and Kluwe obviously thinks so. I think it's all about context. I've heard some things in work environments that would sound absolutely unforgivable if taken out of context but because the people present all understood who was saying it, why it was said and what they meant, the comments were harmless, sometimes even hilarious.
So... what? I don't see the point you're trying to make.Funkytown wrote: And Kluwe has made similar comments, until his "gay activism" started...so?
Yes, he does and in the end, I won't be surprised if that's what this was all about.Eli wrote:If Kluwe was the only person in the room who thought it was too far, then was it? I say no. At that point the statement becomes one of harassment, not homophobia, yet Kluwe is clearly claiming the latter. If Priefer was harassing Kluwe it's a much different news story, isn't it? And Frankly, one that I doubt think anyone would give a damn about. Kluwe knows how to make headlines.
I added to my comment. You're too quick!Mothman wrote: So... what? I don't see the point you're trying to make.
This is for "King James" - with NO due respect. Go f*** yourself. What you said was the most ignorant possible thing you could say. I dare you to say that to gay/lesbian community. You are a loser and need social education. When did you choose to be straight?Homosexuality and race are two different to compare. You have to be crazy to think people are just born gay. Race is something that you can't control no matter how much you want to. Being gay is definitely a decision. Sometimes people experiment when they get older. That doesn't mean they were always gay if they did that though. That means they tried something and like it. A black person can act white on the inside but the skin will still be black. You can't compare those two.
I feel it was a bit of both. That's the point I'm trying to make. That's why it's not a "big shocker" that other players didn't have the same issues with Priefer. They don't have the same link to "the gays" as Kluwe did/does.Mothman wrote: Yes, he does and in the end, I won't be surprised if that's what this was all about.
The Himler thing was a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" reference by the way. A joke made by my people, the JewsPurpleKoolaid wrote: What in the world does race have to do with any of this? Why would race even enter this conversation? And why do people like you have to name call? Always? Try arguing without it once.
This is about Kluwe getting revenge (he would have spoke out sooner if it was about gay rights or a coach actually saying the horrendous things Kluwe says he said). Some believe Kluwe, others, like myself, believe Smith, Walsh and Priefer, and think their character speaks louder then Kluwes. I could be wrong. But comparing Priefer to Himler is much worse. It sickens me, almost as much as people comparing this to race or a hero like Martin Luther King.
For real though, if it comes out that Priefer is guilty of saying what he did/he admits it...he is a sickoLOL! Sorry about that.Funkytown wrote:I added to my comment. You're too quick!
Shouldn't be. After all, Priefer's comments aren't offensive to some, right? People need to toughen up, right? We'll see how fast your post gets turned in.NextQuestion wrote: Oops, I'm sorry, is "uneducated" an offensive word now?
I guess people should "toughen up" at work and put their careers on the line, but people should take VMB dead serious and be all touchy. 
VMB is much more serious than Kluwe supporting his family, of course. Let's all be overly sensitive on VMB and ask for the "mods to come save us" while we claim Kluwe is being a baby and overreacting. Which, again, is not surprising. There are people here who think that--and the opposite.Mothman wrote: LOL! Sorry about that.
I see what you're saying but my point was that players aren't just defending Priefer's conduct in his personal interaction with them but his overall conduct as a coach/professional, which implies that they didn't think he treated Kluwe in an unprofessional manner either.
