Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[dead_poet]

But you can fire someone for bringing negative attention to your organization

Here's my personal problem with that: that speaking out against discrimination and standing up for equality can bring "negative attention" to a person or organization. I guess I just find that a bit sad. Speaking out in general, on any issue (especially one as controversial as same-sex marriage) will bring forth passionate people on both sides. Personally I would find it bringing positive attention on the organization for standing by Kluwe (provided it didn't affect his performance) and his desire for equality. Most Americans, it seems, would be supportive (a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll), particularly in Minnesota. But I can see that if Kluwe was standing up just as passionately for, say, the NRA and weaker gun restrictions how I would be upset with him and consider this bringing "negative attention" to the organization. It just depends on where you stand on the issue how you view the attention it brings.

which Kluwe was doing when he published that letter to the congressman which was clearly meant for attention

You're #### right it was for attention -- to shine the light on a group of persecuted individuals that do not enjoy the same liberties as straight couples. Yes, it also put the spotlight on him, which is a natural thing because he's the one that wrote the letter(s). Of course he's going to get attention for it. You can say that was his sole motivation -- to get attention -- but that's probably not true. I'll step out on a limb here but was Martin Luther King an attention whore? I mean, how would you distinguish the two? Or is an "attention whore" someone that gets media attention with an issue you don't agree with? I think that's a pretty apt description. I think Ann Coulter could be labeled that, but I say that knowing that I just don't agree with her opinions.

Look, when you're an activist for social change, attention is one of the ways change actually begins to happen. Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus/The Montgomery Bus boycott, The Boston massacre & Boston tea party, Susan B. Anthony voting in 1872, leading to her arrest...social change may not happen (or as quickly) without those who were given influence speaking/acting out.

Kluwe's actions, while viewed as controversial (though only for his language, not for any actions that got him thrown in jail), have helped engage others and likely had a part in Minnesota passing same-sex marriage. People like those that tell individuals like Kluwe to "keep your mouth shut" and "go away" had the same views as those that oppressed other groups throughout history. He's not protesting/oppressing people's right to have an opinion that differs from his own. His original letter was attacking a man who was seeking to stifle that Constitutional right. He wasn't telling the guy he couldn't have the opinion, just that he views that opinion to be wrong on so many levels. As he said...

Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"?

What I'm saying is I highly doubt Kluwe was released because of the Vikings holding the opposite opinion of him on gay rights, which is what he claims.

For what it's worth, I also don't think that was the sole motivating factor in his release, but I think it contributed. It's all but impossible to quantify how much of an impact that played, which is why Kluwe likely would have a hard time proving his claim.

[Mothman]

I'm guessing it was hiding in the same place that Priefer's honesty was hiding in 2014 ... behind fear.

Even after being told he was released? It's possible. Maybe he feared he would be "blacklisted', as he's currently claiming but frankly, i find that hard to believe. His sense of self-preservation seems to have outweighed his current stance about "standing up for what's right." Does that only matter to him when his neck isn't on the chopping block?

I feel like you could easily argue the same basic point you made about why Priefer originally lied against yourself here.

Sure and that may be exactly what was going on but it doesn't cast Kluwe in a good light, just like lying doesn't cast Priefer in a good light.

Like you, I'm not saying I agree with Kluwe's actions, but I can find plausible reasons for them. Also like you, I need more info. Unfortunately Kluwe is the only source of information we have at this point. Hopefully we hear the other side soon and they don't leave us hanging with what is a pretty bad impression at this point.

At this point, the whole thing troubles me but I find myself increasingly suspicious of Kluwe's motivations and I'm wondering just how premeditated all of this has been. If I was part of the Vikings legal team, that's certainly one of the questions I'd be asking. Kluwe never made a peep about the supposedly hostile workplace he was in until after they drafted Locke. He then went to Les Pico to express his concerns about Priefer approximately a week before he was released but (based on what we know so far) not to anyone else in the Vikings organization. According to the PP:

Kluwe wrote an affidavit in the Vikings' players lounge at that time, Halunen said, and asked long snapper Cullen Loeffler to sign it. Loeffler refused, Halunen said, and Halunen said Kluwe was unable to contact Walsh about signing an affidavit before Kluwe was cut.

Halunen said Kluwe asked Walsh in a subsequent text message if he would support Kluwe's decision to go public with his claims and corroborate that Walsh was present to hear Priefer's alleged remarks.

Kluwe claims to have texts from Walsh that corroborate his story and now we have Halunen saying "We understand that there is evidence in the record that would connect Rick Spielman to knowledge of Chris' reports and accusations against Priefer prior to Chris' renewal of his contract, clearly creating a connection in time between the decision to not renew his contract and his reporting to (Vikings executive director of player development/legal) Les Pico, the players' representative, of Priefer's homophobic and bigoted statements."

The affadavit makes it sound like Kluwe knew at the time he went to see Pico that he was going to pursue some sort of action against the Vikes if he was released. Did he go to Pico because he was genuinely concerned about Priefer's behavior and workplace conditions or did he go to lay the groundwork for the case he and his lawyer are currently making? That affadavit and his attempts to get Loeffler and Walsh to sign it make me wonder, especially since Kluwe has demonstrated how strong-headed he can be and how viciously he's willing to go after someone whose views don't align with his own.

I don't know what to believe about any of this but I'm very curious to learn what the investigation revealed because I don't find Kluwe a trustworthy source at all.

[jackal]

yeah tired of this already

[Mothman]

Here's my personal problem with that: that speaking out against discrimination and standing up for equality can bring "negative attention" to a person or organization. I guess I just find that a bit sad.

I think it depends on the approach. Speaking out in a respectful, intelligent way against discrimination (as Martin Luther King did) and standing up for equality are admirable qualities. Speaking out as Kluwe, by attacking someone whose views you oppose in a juvenile, expletive-filled diatribe is the sort of thing that could definitely bring negative attention to an organization.

Speaking out in general, on any issue (especially one as controversial as same-sex marriage) will bring forth passionate people on both sides. Personally I would find it bringing positive attention on the organization for standing by Kluwe (provided it didn't affect his performance) and his desire for equality. Most Americans, it seems, would be supportive (a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll), particularly in Minnesota. But I can see that if Kluwe was standing up just as passionately for, say, the NRA and weaker gun restrictions how I would be upset with him and consider this bringing "negative attention" to the organization. It just depends on where you stand on the issue how you view the attention it brings.

As I indicated above, I think it even goes beyond the cause, to methodology. I support same sex marriage but I'm opposed to some of the ways Kluwe went about fighting for it.

You're #### right it was for attention -- to shine the light on a group of persecuted individuals that do not enjoy the same liberties as straight couples. Yes, it also put the spotlight on him, which is a natural thing because he's the one that wrote the letter(s). Of course he's going to get attention for it. You can say that was his sole motivation -- to get attention -- but that's probably not true. I'll step out on a limb here but was Martin Luther King an attention whore?

No, but it's pretty hard to imagine King addressing someone he disagreed with by referring to them them as a "narcissistic fromunda stain".

[dead_poet]

I think it depends on the approach. Speaking out in a respectful, intelligent way against discrimination (as Martin Luther King did) and standing up for equality are admirable qualities. Speaking out as Kluwe, by attacking someone whose views you oppose in a juvenile, expletive-filled diatribe is the sort of thing that could definitely bring negative attention to an organization.

I can see that.

As I indicated above, I think it even goes beyond the cause, to methodology. I support same sex marriage but I'm opposed to some of the ways Kluwe went about fighting for it.

I agree. However I also think it's unfortunate that people fixate on some of his more colorful word choices when 90% of his letter was poignant and profanity-free.

No, but it's pretty hard to imagine King addressing someone he disagreed with by referring to them them as a "narcissistic fromunda stain".

I don't know, Jim. I think that phrase was in one of his earlier "I have a dream" speech drafts. But point taken.

[Cliff]

From a speculative point of view (which is all any of us really have right now) ... at the end of all the discussion, and without the report or anybody coming forward from the Vikings side (yet).

I guess I find it easier to believe that a person was fired for their views on homosexuality by someone who made a comment about "rounding up all the gays on an island and nuking it" rather than someone going to the amount of trouble Kluwe is going to over "sour grapes". Not to mention all of the negative feedback he'd get over making this all public if nothing actually happened.

Logically that just makes more sense to me. YMMV.

[dead_poet]

7/16 interview with Kluwe: http://vikefans.com/index.php?/topic/14 ... m-7-16-14/

His activism/stuff about the report starts at about 16:21

[Mothman]

I agree. However I also think it's unfortunate that people fixate on some of his more colorful word choices when 90% of his letter was poignant and profanity-free.

It's unfortunate but that's why why it's inadvisable to take the expletive-laced approach he chose to take.

I don't know, Jim. I think that phrase was in one of his earlier "I have a dream" speech drafts. But point taken.

[Mothman]

From a speculative point of view (which is all any of us really have right now) ... at the end of all the discussion, and without the report or anybody coming forward from the Vikings side (yet).

I guess I find it easier to believe that a person was fired for their views on homosexuality by someone who made a comment about "rounding up all the gays on an island and nuking it" rather than someone going to the amount of trouble Kluwe is going to over "sour grapes". Not to mention all of the negative feedback he'd get over making this all public if nothing actually happened.

Logically that just makes more sense to me. YMMV.

That's understandable.

My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle: Priefer probably crossed a line and said some things he shouldn't have said. His activism and behavior while with the Vikings might have been a consideration when the team decided to release him but it's unlikely they were the sole reason he was released. He's probably not blacklisted from the NFL but he made himself a difficult "sell" in a business where teams have other options. Kluwe was clearly incensed enough to really go after Priefer on Deadspin and to call Frazier and Spielman cowards in the process but apparently, he was never upset enough to do anything about this until he felt his job was on the line, nor did he feel compelled to do anything about it after being released. He waited over half a year to "do what's right", which calls some things into question.

What I'm (obviously) having issues with is the apparent hypocrisy involved and the way Kluwe is claiming, as he did to Time, that this is all about trying to change workplace culture and that he wants "to make people aware that what they’re saying has consequences, and can be potentially hurtful to other people". Meanwhile, he's been calling people bigots and cowards and claiming it's all about doing what's right. He's made about him, casting himself in the role of victim, martyr and hero and he was only willing to show the courage of his convictions once it appeared the NFL was done with him. It would be a lot easier to respect his position and believe in his stated motives if his actions went a little further in supporting them. Instead, it all comes off as rather self-aggrandizing behavior.

[Mothman]

7/16 interview with Kluwe: http://vikefans.com/index.php?/topic/14 ... m-7-16-14/

His activism/stuff about the report starts at about 16:21

Thanks for the link.

Listening to him, it was almost as if he doesn't realize that his explanation about why the rebuilding Raiders went with a younger punter could also apply to the Vikings. I really got the impression that he has rationalized his release from the Vikings to justify his theory that he was released because of his views.

[Cliff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDK2zdHBX3Q

[Funkytown]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDK2zdHBX3Q

Oh so perfect. Good one!

[Mothman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDK2zdHBX3Q

LOL! Right on target...

[The Breeze]

I think the biggest issue here is that anyone in an authority position who makes the comment that any group of people be put on an island and nuked should lose the privelege of said authority.

I don't care how it came out or why Kluwe was released. There is absolutely no correct context for a man in a position of authority over young men and a moldable influence upon them , in todays world, to make those kind of statements to the young people he is paid to influence. I can't root for people like that to succeed...until they come clean and commit to some path of change.

No where is it written that anyone has a right to not be offended....so, Kluwe's beef there is his own stuff. The fact that Priefer repeadtedly lied to investigators about the issue is reason enough to fire him IMO. He is poor role model and if that is not a no-brainer for this organization then I really question the moral compass of the whole franchise as well as the league itself. No revelation there.

Punters aren't hard to come by and neither are special teams coaches.

It's fun to read the debate it has created here.

[Mothman]

I think the biggest issue here is that anyone in an authority position who makes the comment that any group of people be put on an island and nuked should lose the privelege of said authority.

I don't care how it came out or why Kluwe was released. There is absolutely no correct context for a man in a position of authority over young men and a moldable influence upon them , in todays world, to make those kind of statements to the young people he is paid to influence.

I disagree. Context is crucial. There is absolutely no getting around that. If those words were uttered sincerely without preface or further comment, and with the sort of malice Kluwe alleges, then that's obviously something the team has to take very seriously. However, merely looking at the words on their own and reading Kluwe's account is not enough to determine that Priefer should lose his job. A reprimand is definitely in order but without knowing anything else about the situation, including how the comments may have been prefaced or followed up, suggesting Priefer should be fired seems like an overly simplistic, "black and white" way to view things and a harsh judgment based on an incomplete, and potentially very biased, picture.

... and just to reiterate, when I say "context" this is what I mean: "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed."

All we have is Kluwe's account. That's simply not enough.