Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[Mothman]

Understandable. I'll wait for you.

Fair enough!

[Just Me]

We do.

That's my thing, though. The first issue here is: Do you believe Kluwe or not? And then opinions follow after that. Just reading through these many responses, it's pretty obvious who believes Kluwe and who doesn't. For those of us who believe Kluwe, we are likely to respond with resentment and disgust towards Priefer, and for those who don't necessarily believe Kluwe, they are going with the, "Let's wait and see" or "Kluwe, you're annoying...shut the f*** up and go away" attitude. "Let's wait and see" is a bit more mature and responsible, but again, if one believed Kluwe, even a little bit, what are we waiting for again? Just the validation, right?

Here's the thing: I suspect Kluwe's version of the event(s) is substantially based on fact(s). It doesn't mean that the facts without context won't change the conclusion. It's about paradigms. A paradigm is a quick way to come to a conclusion while sifting through much information. Paradigms exist because they are efficient ways of coming to a conclusion when time is of the essence. (i.e. if I'm on a plane in flight and the engine fire indicator comes on, I'm not likely to spend much time wondering if the indicator is a faulty light or not. I'm going to pull the fire extinguisher handle even though the possibility exists that it is a faulty warning system. If I'm on the ground doing maintenance and that happens, I might take the time to actually check the latter possibility before further action). Since these alleged acts occurred 1+ years ago, what's the hurry? Suppose, for the sake of argument, the conversation did go this way:

Kluwe: I live for the day when the LGBT community will be accepted and have a substantial presence in our government.
Priefer: Chris, knock it off. We're here to cover football.
Kluwe: What position in government should the homosexual community have?
Priefer: (Sarcastically) We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows. Now, can we concentrate on football, please?

In my hypothetical situation, Kluwe's version is correct, but he omits information that, if included, might create a different slant on the incident. This is why I would like to wait until the investigation has been completed. I 'concocted' a fictional conversation to illustrate how it could have happened in the manner that Kluwe described and yet not accurately portray the conversation.

Keep in mind, It may be every bit as reprehensible as Kluwe initially portrayed it to be. I just have an aversion to believing only "one-side of the story" before all the facts come to light.

So, then we can be upset for real for real? Either you believe him or you don't, but it's hard to get to anything else without that first assumption, right?

You certainly can be upset, and you rightfully will be if Kluwe is proven correct. What if he is wrong? Doesn't it seem unfair to judge another man simply by what a third party has said? 'NextQuestion's' friend seems to be in a better position to make the assumption/conclusion. He actually has knowledge of Kluwe and is much closer to him than we are. None of us know Kluwe or Priefer. I neither want to accuse Kluwe of lying or Priefer of 'bigotry' unless I have substantially more than: "This guy that I don't really know said...." (BTW this applies to Kluwe as much as to Priefer. Priefer denying the allegations does not = Kluwe being a liar. I don't know Priefer either). My assumption on all investigations is that each side is telling the truth. The process is to support/refute those statements with interviews and evidence.

For me, it just comes down to common sense. Of course, I love Kluwe. He's my guy. But, aside from all that, this guy is a VERY intelligent man who spent a good amount of time and put some serious thought into all of this. Being an intelligent man, do we honestly believe he pulled all (or even some) of this out of his butt? Clearly, being that intelligent man who has been previously outspoken about many things, he knows the consquences of his actions/words. (Hello? Isn't that the issue here?) Is he dumb enough to make stories up like this and release them to the entire world? Come on. Whether someone likes Kluwe or not, or approves of his methods, at some point, common sense has to kick in. Common sense says: Kluwe didn't make this up. And because he probably didn't make these things up, and they, indeed, (likely) did happen, I'm choosing to put my resentment and disgust towards Priefer, not Kluwe, despite his less-than-desirable methods. Two wrongs don't make a right. I get that. But I can still have an opinion on which one was more wrong. To me, that's not Kluwe. Because as I said, if I'm going off my first assumption of "Kluwe is being honest" then I don't think his name calling and whatnot compares to the rest. I'm not saying it's all entirely justified, but I know it's less wrong than Priefer's comments. So, there ya go.

See my hypothetical situation above. There's a case where Kluwe didn't "make-up" anything. I'm not even considering the aspect of which action(s) were 'worse.' I'm saying that in my experience, it is uncommon for something like this to be this clearly 'black-and-white.' If it did happen eaxctly (with no ommissions) the way Kluwe described then Priefer is an idiot as well as a bigot.

It usually comes down to an incomplete set of facts that when fully revealed paints a different picture than what was originally asserted by the allegations alone. You can certainly choose to believe Kluwe 100% and history may prove you right. My experience is that I usually regret it, when I come to a conclusion based on limited facts when there are other facts yet to be obtained.

[Purple bruise]

Here's the thing: I suspect Kluwe's version of the event(s) is substantially based on fact(s). It doesn't mean that the facts without context won't change the conclusion. It's about paradigms. A paradigm is a quick way to come to a conclusion while sifting through much information. Paradigms exist because they are efficient ways of coming to a conclusion when time is of the essence. (i.e. if I'm on a plane in flight and the engine fire indicator comes on, I'm not likely to spend much time wondering if the indicator is a faulty light or not. I'm going to pull the fire extinguisher handle even though the possibility exists that it is a faulty warning system. If I'm on the ground doing maintenance and that happens, I might take the time to actually check the latter possibility before further action). Since these alleged acts occurred 1+ years ago, what's the hurry? Suppose, for the sake of argument, the conversation did go this way:

Kluwe: I live for the day when the LGBT community will be accepted and have a substantial presence in our government.
Priefer: Chris, knock it off. We're here to cover football.
Kluwe: What position in government should the homosexual community have?
Priefer: (Sarcastically) We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows. Now, can we concentrate on football, please?

In my hypothetical situation, Kluwe's version is correct, but he omits information that, if included, might create a different slant on the incident. This is why I would like to wait until the investigation has been completed. I 'concocted' a fictional conversation to illustrate how it could have happened in the manner that Kluwe described and yet not accurately portray the conversation.

Keep in mind, It may be every bit as reprehensible as Kluwe initially portrayed it to be. I just have an aversion to believing only "one-side of the story" before all the facts come to light.

You certainly can be upset, and you rightfully will be if Kluwe is proven correct. What if he is wrong? Doesn't it seem unfair to judge another man simply by what a third party has said? 'NextQuestion's' friend seems to be in a better position to make the assumption/conclusion. He actually has knowledge of Kluwe and is much closer to him than we are. None of us know Kluwe or Priefer. I neither want to accuse Kluwe of lying or Priefer of 'bigotry' unless I have substantially more than: "This guy that I don't really know said...." (BTW this applies to Kluwe as much as to Priefer. Priefer denying the allegations does not = Kluwe being a liar. I don't know Priefer either). My assumption on all investigations is that each side is telling the truth. The process is to support/refute those statements with interviews and evidence.
See my hypothetical situation above. There's a case where Kluwe didn't "make-up" anything. I'm not even considering the aspect of which action(s) were 'worse.' I'm saying that in my experience, it is uncommon for something like this to be this clearly 'black-and-white.' If it did happen eaxctly (with no ommissions) the way Kluwe described then Priefer is an idiot as well as a bigot.

It usually comes down to an incomplete set of facts that when fully revealed paints a different picture than what was originally asserted by the allegations alone. You can certainly choose to believe Kluwe 100% and history may prove you right. My experience is that I usually regret it, when I come to a conclusion based on limited facts when there are other facts yet to be obtained.

Well thought out and you made some great points

[NextQuestion]

Hey, I am just curious. You posted this earlier under the Manziel topic, "With the exception of a few people on MVB...nobody knows anything about Manziel. He likes to party with babes and is not your everyday QB. He for sure doesn't fit the family friendly terrible-to-average Viking player that we're accustomed to." Is this your same musician friend that has hung out with Kluwe that gave you the heads up on Manziel chasing women and partying or where did you get that information?

You know it baby! (jk) In all seriousness, I get the feeling Kluwe will come out on top because really: Why make that stuff up?

If anyone is actually curious or questions "my friend" feel free to DM me. I won't put names out but I'd be happy to connect some dots for you. Also, like my pal said...look closer at Walsh's comments. It's not really a flat out denial that Priefer did or did not say those things

[dead_poet]

Respectfully, if one hinges an argument on those words emboldened, I think that makes for a weak argument. It means that your pal is looking for Blair Walsh to say exactly "Mike Priefer never made a statement about putting all gays on an island and nuking it until it glows".

If he never heard Priefer say those words, it's curious that he didn't come out and just say that. That's the central issue here. Did he say those things or not? Walsh has not provided testimony that supports or denies Kluwe's assertion.

Besides, Priefer himself said members of his own family were gay so he wouldn't seriously make such a statement.

Having relatives that are gay doesn't necessarily mean he's not against their lifestyle.

[dead_poet]

There is also a saying about "not dignifying such remarks", let's say someone says I used a racial or sexist epithet. Someone stands up for me and says "such an allegation is reprehensible and not compatible with what Valhalla stands for", sounds like a denial to me. I find that trying to say it does not seem to be a denial a farfetched argument but that is just for me.

Except saying, "I'm not dignifying such remarks", at least in my eyes (depending on the way they're delivered), can be interpreted as guilt if they aren't denied at some point. Further, why even leave things up to interpretation? That's avoiding the central issue. He either said those things (in Walsh's presence) or he didn't.

[dead_poet]

Your interpretation is that they are avoiding the central issue. I don't see that at all, that somehow they are couching this remark in some sneaky way to avoid the truth.

To my knowledge they are issuing statements, not answering direct media questions. Walsh (unlike Smith) may have been one of the people in the meeting room when the alleged comments took place. I don't understand what's so difficult to say, "I never heard him say those words."

Harrison Smith:
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_248 ... s-comments

With all due respect to Smith, he likely wouldn't have been in the room when the alleged comments took place and when the schism between Priefer and Kluwe seemed to reach its peak.

Walsh says that such allegations are "reprehensible" read VILE, UGLY and are "totally not compatible with what Mike Priefer stands for."

Sounds like a denial to me unless somehow one is playing a "gotcha game" with someone.

Maybe Priefer was having a bad day. Maybe he was kidding. Maybe he was saying it to annoy Kluwe. He could not stand for something and still say the words. Plus, it's still not a denial that he heard the alleged remark.

[Mothman]

Except saying, "I'm not dignifying such remarks", at least in my eyes (depending on the way they're delivered), can be interpreted as guilt if they aren't denied at some point. Further, why even leave things up to interpretation? That's avoiding the central issue. He either said those things (in Walsh's presence) or he didn't.

Maybe the answer lies in what Just Me has been saying. Perhaps Priefer uttered those words but in a context quite different from what Kluwe describes and in a way that was far less offensive than those words appear when viewed in print, along with the implication that they reflect deeply-held beliefs.

Walsh didn't exactly mince words in condemning Kluwe's allegations or defending Priefer's professionalism.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the investigation turns up.

[NextQuestion]

Ok, but never does Walsh say "He never said that".

[dead_poet]

Your interpretation is that it is not a denial, maybe we can send email for a clarification.

That's part of my problem: we have to interpret what Walsh said.

I just do not believe Kluwe would put that out there if he did not hear it. He's a smart guy. He had to have known there would be possible legal repercussions. He sounds supremely confident in his case and welcomes legal intervention. *shrug* I could be wrong.

The only one that may have been in the room at the time was Walsh, and he didn't deny the words were said. So right now, in my mind, it's a "he said, he said" situation.

This leads us to believe Priefer would make horrific statements about nuking people and then find out it is NOT compatible with what he stands for even though allegedly he made the statement. I don't think so.

So Walsh has been a member of the team for how long? And in that time he can know, unequivocally, what Mike Priefer does and does not stand for? It's nice he's coming to Priefer's defense, and might think he's a great guy. But I doubt he knows all his social and political views.

But maybe we can send the Vikings office a printed questionnaire.

I don't care about a questionnaire. I care about what was actually said (if anything) and who (if anyone) heard it.

[mosscarter]

who cares about chris kluwe? he is no longer on the team and just wants attention and you people are giving it to him. 14 pages on this garbage? he's a former punter for god sake.

[Just Me]

Your interpretation is that it is not a denial, maybe we can send email for a clarification.

ALLEGATIONS- REPREHENSIBLE
TOTALLY NOT COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT MIKE PRIEFER STANDS FOR.

So? This leads us to believe Priefer would make horrific statements about nuking people and then find out it is NOT compatible with what he stands for even though allegedly he made the statement. I don't think so.

But maybe we can send the Vikings office a printed questionnaire.

IIRC the allegations (that Kluwe was let go for other than performance issues) would be reprehensible if Kluwe was cut for performance reasons. They would also be reprehensible (refer to my previous fictional conversational example) if they were knowingly presented in a way the purposefully omitted the context with the intent to commit harm to Priefer. None of that excludes the possibility that Priefer made the exact statement that Kluwe alleged was made.

"TOTALLY NOT COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT MIKE PRIEFER STANDS FOR" - Again, if Priefer uttered those exact words in a sarcastic frustration, it may not be "compatible with what Mike Priefer stands for." For that matter, even if he engaged in one act (out of character, normally for him) that would still be "TOTALLY NOT COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT MIKE PRIEFER STANDS FOR" even though he made the isolated comment.

We don't need to send a memo - That is what the investigators are for. That is why some of us want to see how the investigation plays out.

[dead_poet]

Oh, okay, he certainly is saying he is not a bigot (not compatible with what MP stands for) and such allegations are reprehensible. Maybe we can ask Winter park to have players make precise statements.

Well, that's exactly what a court (or investigators) will want.

[NextQuestion]

who cares about chris kluwe? he is no longer on the team and just wants attention and you people are giving it to him. 14 pages on this garbage? he's a former punter for god sake.

Perhaps you should try out for a Punting job if it's so easy and worthless. I'd love to make NFL money!

[Just Me]

Perhaps you should try out for a Punting job if it's so easy and worthless. I'd love to make NFL money!

I would have made it as an NFL player if it wasn't for my strength, speed and talent deficiencies. Other than that, I was a lock!!!