Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[Mothman]

If you listen to the interview, it seems Kluwe is convinced he was let go because of his stance. The interviewer asks him a separate question about whether he would sue if the investigation concludes there is no evidence he was 'let go' for other than 'football reasons' (my paraphrase). Kluwe was pretty definitive he would sue in that case. In essence, he is saying he will only accept the outcome of the investigation if it concludes what he believes is the case.

I listened to the whole thing and came away with the same impression. I also get the impression he's somewhat in denial about other possible reasons for his release, like his age, salary and (despite what he says) a noticeable drop in the quality and consistency of his performance. It wasn't a statistically significant drop but we noticed it here on the board during his last season and it was covered in the press.

[S197]

I listened to the whole thing and came away with the same impression. I also get the impression he's somewhat in denial about other possible reasons for his release, like his age, salary and (despite what he says) a noticeable drop in the quality and consistency of his performance. It wasn't a statistically significant drop but we noticed it here on the board during his last season and it was covered in the press.

I think salary would be the main driver here, I don't know how much age plays into a factor for kickers and as you mentioned statistically he was inline with his career. If you believe him, he was also told to change his kicking style, to put more air under the ball and kick it shorter because as Priefer put it, "their coverage team sucks" or something to that degree. So in that case you can't really knock him for a nominal drop in performance if that's what the coach is asking for, it's not like Locke was substantially better.

We also need to remember that Kluwe is a very good holder. I think some of Walsh's decline this year was probably due to Kluwe not being there.

[IrishViking]

Chris isn't that smart in a normal way, though, he's smart in that sociopathic sort of way. He's well-spoken and he can formulate an argument about almost anything, but he isn't realistic. Just a couple of years ago he was going on about freedom of speech, but then he writes an article in an attempt to punish someone who he felt was crossing some sort of line.

Like I said earlier, I think Priefer was obviously just trying to prove a point, and Kluwe being who he is, took this as an opportunity to try and ruin his career. That takes a certain kind of cold, calculating personality, which goes along well with what I said about him being smart in that sociopathic sense.

I really have to disagree with this. No matter what Priefer's goal was with the comments and, to be clear, you have a MUCH more positive views of his motives than I do. You simply can't say something like that, period. Saying that you think an entire group of people should be nuked into oblivion seems far far FAR more sociopathic than the conclusions people are drawing about Kluwe's motives.

To be clear. Priefer is completely deserving of a unbiased fair shake and is completely innocent until proven guilty however if it comes out he said it it IS hate speech. No grey area and as Kluwe alluded to. Someone with that much sway shouldn't be allowed to say those types of things w/o consequences.

To touch on another point. I am personally in the camp of it not being either or meaning; I don't necessarily think that even if Kluwe has the most selfish motives ever in this, it doesn't mean Priefer is innocent and the reverse is true. Even if Kluwe is vindicated it doesn't mean that Kluwe hasn't been a fairly substantial ####.

[NextQuestion]

I don't get how Kluwe is viewed as a butthole. If it comes out that he's right about Priefer..he deserves all the praise for calling out that hate monger

[IrishViking]

I don't get how Kluwe is viewed as a butthole. If it comes out that he's right about Priefer..he deserves all the praise for calling out that hate monger

I think it comes from his stubbornness to admit that there was possibly something to do with his footballing that affected the decision. If he was saying "yeah I was hurting my chances with my play but this was the primary reason" fine. But he is saying. "There was literally no reason to get rid of me besides this," which just isn't true and he comes of as kinda ####-y

[Slick Rick]

I really have to disagree with this. No matter what Priefer's goal was with the comments and, to be clear, you have a MUCH more positive views of his motives than I do. You simply can't say something like that, period. Saying that you think an entire group of people should be nuked into oblivion seems far far FAR more sociopathic than the conclusions people are drawing about Kluwe's motives.

To be clear. Priefer is completely deserving of a unbiased fair shake and is completely innocent until proven guilty however if it comes out he said it it IS hate speech. No grey area and as Kluwe alluded to. Someone with that much sway shouldn't be allowed to say those types of things w/o consequences.

To touch on another point. I am personally in the camp of it not being either or meaning; I don't necessarily think that even if Kluwe has the most selfish motives ever in this, it doesn't mean Priefer is innocent and the reverse is true. Even if Kluwe is vindicated it doesn't mean that Kluwe hasn't been a fairly substantial ####.

I can't disagree with you anymore. If a joke, sarcasm, or any other comment not intended to be taken seriously is to be considered hate speech, then what isn't? There's a clear line, and context is everything.

What if you think about it on the other foot though. "I think we should put all the straights on an island and bomb the #### out of it", can you even begin to take a comment like that seriously? Does it sound like it would ever be intended to be taken seriously? I know I wouldn't, maybe you would, but I'd just laugh. However, think about it with the word gays instead of straights, and it's politically incorrect.

My point is, this is Chris' personal problem that he took WAAAYYY out of proportion in what is admittedly an attempt to ruin someone's career, and he knows that's wrong. That's the epitome of sociopathy, not dropping some silly line about how you think we should nuke gays on an island.

[NextQuestion]

It's not really a silly line, but thanks.

[Slick Rick]

It's not really a silly line, but thanks.

Sure it is. How is it not a silly line?

[NextQuestion]

If he truly said it in the tone Kluwe is implying...that's flat out scary and hope that idiot would be gone from the Vikings. I just don't think people realize how smart Kluwe is and he's not just making this up.

[Slick Rick]

If he truly said it in the tone Kluwe is implying...that's flat out scary and hope that idiot would be gone from the Vikings. I just don't think people realize how smart Kluwe is and he's not just making this up.

You can say anything in any tone you want, it doesn't mean anything.

If anything, I think more people are overvaluing Kluwe's intelligence in all of this, and how exactly do you draw the conclusion that his intelligence means that he isn't making this up? Doesn't it just give him another weapon to make things up? Isn't the best liar a smart liar?

[Just Me]

What if you think about it on the other foot though. "I think we should put all the straights on an island and bomb the #### out of it", can you even begin to take a comment like that seriously? Does it sound like it would ever be intended to be taken seriously? I know I wouldn't, maybe you would, but I'd just laugh. However, think about it with the word gays instead of straights, and it's politically incorrect.

To be fair, though, I am not aware of a heterosexual being the victim of a crime solely on the basis of being heterosexual. The reverse (obviously) is not true. Even if it turns out (as mentioned in my hypothetical) that Priefer made the statement sarcastically and meant no "hate" within his comment, (were I Zigi) I would still consider firing him for lack of judgment in making the comment. I need leaders that have good judgement, not ones that cause dissention by poorly chosen words. (If Priefer did not make the comments as alleged, I hope Kluwe is held accountable for it, and Priefer makes a hefty sum of money over the deal.)

[NextQuestion]

LoL - he is not making this up. You can believe me or not but I already stated pages and pages ago he let close friends know about this back when this happened last year.

You can say anything in any tone you want, it doesn't mean anything.

OK? So everything Hitler said was passed off like "hmm. no biggie. that silly mustached man. hehe"?

[Just Me]

If he truly said it in the tone Kluwe is implying...that's flat out scary and hope that idiot would be gone from the Vikings. I just don't think people realize how smart Kluwe is and he's not just making this up.

Ted Bundy was extremely intelligent (IQ reportedly between 124-140). I'm not equating Bundy to Kluwe, I'm saying Intelligence does not equate to truthfulness. Yes, Kluwe is smart and he understands the gravity of what he has alleged, but it doesn't exclude the possibility he is a narcissist who might think that he can "twist the truth" enough (or lie) to destroy Priefer and "get away with it. I'm not saying that is what's happening, but I'm not ruling it out, either.

[Just Me]

LoL - he is not making this up. You can believe me or not but I already stated pages and pages ago he let close friends know about this back when this happened last year.

And if that's true, I believe the investigation will ultimately bear that out.

[Slick Rick]

To be fair, though, I am not aware of a heterosexual being the victim of a crime solely on the basis of being heterosexual. The reverse (obviously) is not true. Even if it turns out (as mentioned in my hypothetical) that Priefer made the statement sarcastically and meant no "hate" within his comment, (were I Zigi) I would still consider firing him for lack of judgment in making the comment. I need leaders that have good judgement, not ones that cause dissention by poorly chosen words. (If Priefer did not make the comments as alleged, I hope Kluwe is held accountable for it, and Priefer makes a hefty sum of money over the deal.)

I don't think the fact that heterosexuals are typically considered to be less victimized than homosexuals should factor into it, since this is about equality. I do agree with you on the poor judgment part, and I think the Vikings would be within their rights to fire Priefer, since he's an employee, and he represents their business. Same goes with Kluwe, and especially after they told him to knock it off. 100% agree though, you shouldn't make that comment if you're Mike Priefer, and you're supposed to set an example, and also just saying it in front of someone who you know disagrees with you.