Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[Purple bruise]

well, who needs freedom of speech anyway

Are you referring to Priefer's freedom of speach or Jag-offs?

[mossbutt]

Are you referring to Priefer's freedom of speach or Jag-offs?

freedom of speech is freedom of speech

[Purple bruise]

freedom of speech is freedom of speech

So they BOTH should have a right to say what they want

[mossbutt]

nope.....only the side im rooting for should have the right

[Purple bruise]

nope.....only the side im rooting for should have the right

Makes sense to me

[dead_poet]

Souhan: The Vikings and Kluwe deserve each other

You can find exceptional human beings in the NFL about as often as you can find exceptional human beings in any other workplace, but a valued player can get away with bad behavior if he contributes on the field.

Kluwe wasn’t valued, and had stopped producing at a level commensurate with his salary. He deserved to be cut.

What’s sad is that Kluwe’s campaign against the Vikings would be worthwhile if he hadn’t adopted the same behavior he now condemns.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 77911.html

[Mothman]

Souhan: The Vikings and Kluwe deserve each other
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 77911.html

I figured we'd get a column like this sooner or later and Souhan's larger point seems to be that NFL teams and players, in general, all deserve this.

I'd be curious to hear from others but in my experience, if you get a group of males together on a daily basis for an extended period of time (ie: long enough for them to become friends and be comfortable around each other), some politically incorrect and potentially offensive things will end up being said, usually in jest, perhaps even on a fairly regular basis. It's probably not true in every case but my personal experience (even here on VMB) suggests it's very common, if not universal. With a large group of men, I'm guessing it's practically a given that some of that kind of talk will occur.

I still believe there are things that should not be said in the workplace, in jest or otherwise, but as our society moves further down this path of condemning people for such behavior, I'm wondering how many are willing to acknowledge that it's actually pretty common and that most of us have said something, at some point, that would make us sound very bad if repeated out of context, to strangers. Souhan makes some good points in that column but he's casting stones I suspect could be cast in his direction too. Does anybody believe the kind of talk I'm referring to, and that he refers to in his column, doesn't occur among the largely male fraternity of professional sportswriters?

[dead_poet]

I figured we'd get a column like this sooner or later and Souhan's larger point seems to be that NFL teams and players, in general, all deserve this.

I'd be curious to hear from others but in my experience, if you get a group of males together on a daily basis for an extended period of time (ie: long enough for them to become friends and be comfortable around each other), some politically incorrect and potentially offensive things will end up being said, usually in jest, perhaps even on a fairly regular basis. It's probably not true in every case but my personal experience (even here on VMB) suggests it's very common, if not universal. With a large group of men, I'm guessing it's practically a given that some of that kind of talk will occur.

I still believe there are things that should not be said in the workplace, in jest or otherwise, but as our society moves further down this path of condemning people for such behavior, I'm wondering how many are willing to acknowledge that it's actually pretty common and that most of us have said something, at some point, that would make us sound very bad if repeated out of context, to strangers. Souhan makes some good points in that column but he's casting stones I suspect could be cast in his direction too. Does anybody believe the kind of talk I'm referring to, and that he refers to in his column, doesn't occur among the largely male fraternity of professional sportswriters?

I know I'm probably guilty, though I don't think I've ever advocated for the mass murder of an entire group of people before, even in "jest." I doubt Souhan is angelic/innocent, but what do I know?

[Mothman]

I know I'm probably guilty, though I don't think I've ever advocated for the mass murder of an entire group of people before, even in "jest." I doubt Souhan is angelic/innocent, but what do I know?

Souhan's column has a much larger scope than Priefer's comment and that larger scope is what I was trying to address. I was also trying to acknowledge the existence of a male culture (for lack of a better word) in which it's common for words and phrases to be uttered that would be considered insensitive, politically incorrect or offensive if removed from their original context. I suspect we've all either said such things or been present and laughed when something like that was said. However, it seems like that reality is almost a dirty little secret that's going unacknowledged as people go after this or that person who said the wrong thing (and none of that even addresses the point that people also say nasty things they don't mean when they get mad, something else most of us have experienced)

If it's even remotely possible, let's forget Priefer's comment for a minute because I really wasn't trying to make a point about that in my previous post. In fact, can we just establish, as a group, that nobody here approves of what he said or thinks it was okay to say it in the workplace? If someone disagrees, please speak up. Otherwise, if we're all in agreement that it shouldn't have been said, maybe we can move forward without coming back to it again and again.

Back to my point; I wasn't just trying to say that Souhan is likely being a bit hypocritical. Instead, my point is that I see an elephant in the room. There's a certain inevitability to politically incorrect, insensitive behavior in large groups of male humans (like a football team) and I'm not convinced that's anything more than human nature. We can make a big deal out of it, and there are certainly lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I think we might as well acknowledge that inevitability, especially because, to some extent, it's at odds with the extremely sensitive society I think some folks are trying to create. That society might be their version of a utopian ideal.

I'm probably making a mistake by trying to articulate any of this here. I doubt I write well enough to make the point I'm trying to make without being misunderstood.

[Raptorman]

I figured we'd get a column like this sooner or later and Souhan's larger point seems to be that NFL teams and players, in general, all deserve this.

I'd be curious to hear from others but in my experience, if you get a group of males together on a daily basis for an extended period of time (ie: long enough for them to become friends and be comfortable around each other), some politically incorrect and potentially offensive things will end up being said, usually in jest, perhaps even on a fairly regular basis. It's probably not true in every case but my personal experience (even here on VMB) suggests it's very common, if not universal. With a large group of men, I'm guessing it's practically a given that some of that kind of talk will occur.

I still believe there are things that should not be said in the workplace, in jest or otherwise, but as our society moves further down this path of condemning people for such behavior, I'm wondering how many are willing to acknowledge that it's actually pretty common and that most of us have said something, at some point, that would make us sound very bad if repeated out of context, to strangers. Souhan makes some good points in that column but he's casting stones I suspect could be cast in his direction too. Does anybody believe the kind of talk I'm referring to, and that he refers to in his column, doesn't occur among the largely male fraternity of professional sportswriters?

I agree with you. Men will start saying things after being around each other for a while. Although there are some lines that should not be crossed. While in the Military many times we would delve into areas that were not political correct. However, we were always cognizant of the fact that someone might be offended and we would make sure that we did not do that.

[Mothman]

I agree with you. Men will start saying things after being around each other for a while. Although there are some lines that should not be crossed. While in the Military many times we would delve into areas that were not political correct. However, we were always cognizant of the fact that someone might be offended and we would make sure that we did not do that.

Yes, and that's wise. I've always tried to do likewise. However, the more comfortable people get around each other, and the more confident they become that they won't be misinterpreted, the more some of them might be able to push the envelope.

You doubt you write well enough to make the point? The above is stated very well.

Thanks. I just don't feel like I'm always able to articulate what I'm thinking clearly enough to keep from being misunderstood!

And not just large groups of males. I imagine that pertains to other large groups of people. Might one hear something a bit over the top with say, one of the women's professional basketball teams? I can imagine so. At least in the locker room or training camp.

You're probably right about that.

[NextQuestion]

Here's how I feel about it: Chris is obviously furious at the Vikings & he's lashing out. I still believe that the full report will reveal worse things about the Vikings and maybe some stuff about Chris Kluwe as well. Kluwe was paid $1.2M? It's not like cutting a guy like Jennings who has a gigantic salary. We saved $500K.

As a fan of the Vikings, I have a really hard time justifying support for a team who employs a guy like Priefer. I pay good money to watch this team and my tax dollars are going to the Wilf's shiny new stadium...and we're keeping on some mediocre special teams coach who made a horribly offensive homophobic comment in the work place? I have several gay friends in the MSP area and it must feel awesome to them that their hometown team keeps a guy on like this.

[The Breeze]

Souhan's column has a much larger scope than Priefer's comment and that larger scope is what I was trying to address. I was also trying to acknowledge the existence of a male culture (for lack of a better word) in which it's common for words and phrases to be uttered that would be considered insensitive, politically incorrect or offensive if removed from their original context. I suspect we've all either said such things or been present and laughed when something like that was said. However, it seems like that reality is almost a dirty little secret that's going unacknowledged as people go after this or that person who said the wrong thing (and none of that even addresses the point that people also say nasty things they don't mean when they get mad, something else most of us have experienced)

If it's even remotely possible, let's forget Priefer's comment for a minute because I really wasn't trying to make a point about that in my previous post. In fact, can we just establish, as a group, that nobody here approves of what he said or thinks it was okay to say it in the workplace? If someone disagrees, please speak up. Otherwise, if we're all in agreement that it shouldn't have been said, maybe we can move forward without coming back to it again and again.

Back to my point; I wasn't just trying to say that Souhan is likely being a bit hypocritical. Instead, my point is that I see an elephant in the room. There's a certain inevitability to politically incorrect, insensitive behavior in large groups of male humans (like a football team) and I'm not convinced that's anything more than human nature. We can make a big deal out of it, and there are certainly lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I think we might as well acknowledge that inevitability, especially because, to some extent, it's at odds with the extremely sensitive society I think some folks are trying to create. That society might be their version of a utopian ideal.

I'm probably making a mistake by trying to articulate any of this here. I doubt I write well enough to make the point I'm trying to make without being misunderstood.

I completely agree about the elephant in the room and hence my "who would jesus nuke" comment on the priefer thread.
The attitudes and mentality of the military/lockerroom groupthink mindset may be a fact of nature but it truly represents the larval stage of it.
I literally cringe at the idea that a world where little children not being raped or having cluster bombs drop in their neighborhoods and women in Africa having rifles rammed up their yonis is some utopian ideal that can never happen.
Men are the ones doing this kind of crap and it starts with the nueral pathway programming they get in these peer settings as young people. They learn to accept the unacceptable as human nature because the environment that has been created systematically roots out the souls who would speak out against it.
It's the responsibilty of the people at the top and their integrity being based on something more wholesome and sustainable than making a profit. In fact it suggests that what profit means should be redefin
ed in terms of an outcome where everyone improves.
My country's main exports are generated out of the military industrial complex. It's all run by a bunch of men who have crossed so many lines that they have become completely desensitized. This is not human nature...it's the nature of human deprivation. A wound being perpetually projected on to people in the way of progress, a progress that could best be depicted as a cancerous tumor.
It's a really bad idea to continue taking our liesure and pasttime activities and use them , conscious or not, to steep young men in that depraved culture. I have been around many groups of men where this kind of talk and behavior has ceased and it's due to the individuals having had come to terms with their fears and moving through them in nonreactive ways.

Frightened people lie and act out of deprivation when it comes to making tough decisions and they run in packs making sure that everyone in their immediate surrounding has an extorted respect for what their group fears most, which is usually something to do with not being in control.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

I think Demi is not far off the mark on how this team is being run. From what i have seen, the only guy in this whole mess that has actually stood up and been accountable for every word he has said, even the really crappy things, is Chris Kluwe.....and he is the freak.
Maybe if there were more freaks in the room he would not need to be so volatile.....but then it could just be his nature as an imaginal cell in the caterpillar stew of transformation.

I'm sure this post will be received warmly.

[Just Me]

I think Demi is not far off the mark on how this team is being run. From what i have seen, the only guy in this whole mess that has actually stood up and been accountable for every word he has said, even the really crappy things, is Chris Kluwe.....and he is the freak.
Maybe if there were more freaks in the room he would not need to be so volatile.....but then it could just be his nature as an imaginal cell in the caterpillar stew of transformation.

I'm sure this post will be received warmly.

Sorry, but who called him a freak? In terms of candor/truthfulness (admitting to what he said) I would agree that Kluwe wins here. But justifying Kluwe's actions (e.g. "Maybe if there were more freaks in the room he would not need to be so volatile") is no different than giving Priefer a pass for "Kluwe antagonizing Priefer" (my paraphrase of what some others have stated). I still maintain, even if Kluwe "goaded Priefer", what Priefer said would still be wrong. Why would I give Kluwe a "pass" on his bad behavior? The ends do not justify the means (at least, that's what I believe).

What part of Kluwe's 'necessary volatile behavior' includes keeping information quiet about a "compromising situation with an underage girl" until it becomes useful for his purposes? It's either true (or presumptively true), in which case Kluwe has no moral high ground waiting until now to bring it up, or it's deliberately misleading/false in which case Kluwe has no moral high ground bringing it up at all.

None of this will ever make Priefer "right". But Priefer's shortcomings do not automatically give Kluwe a pass on his shortcomings, either.

[The Breeze]

Sorry, but who called him a freak? In terms of candor/truthfulness (admitting to what he said) I would agree that Kluwe wins here. But justifying Kluwe's actions (e.g. "Maybe if there were more freaks in the room he would not need to be so volatile") is no different than giving Priefer a pass for "Kluwe antagonizing Priefer" (my paraphrase of what some others have stated). I still maintain, even if Kluwe "goaded Priefer", what Priefer said would still be wrong. Why would I give Kluwe a "pass" on his bad behavior? The ends do not justify the means (at least, that's what I believe).

What part of Kluwe's 'necessary volatile behavior' includes keeping information quiet about a "compromising situation with an underage girl" until it becomes useful for his purposes? It's either true (or presumptively true), in which case Kluwe has no moral high ground waiting until now to bring it up, or it's deliberately misleading/false in which case Kluwe has no moral high ground bringing it up at all.

None of this will ever make Priefer "right". But Priefer's shortcomings do not automatically give Kluwe a pass on his shortcomings, either.

I called him a freak. And I'm not suggesting anyone get a pass for anything only saying that if more people took a stand it might reduce the factor of volativity and actually generate a change more toward the cause of some really terrible collective issues. What is necessary is subjective and is determined case by the individual. I suggested that perhaps if there were more "kluwes" as in terms of inviduals recognizing the need for an active stance to bring about some conscious change then that active voice would have more nuance to it's tone.
I see the whole situation as symptomatic of a deeper issue that permeates so thoroughly that we consider it natural and I disagree.
By calling him a freak I'm not condemning him either, rather pointing out his imaginal singularity.

But the gist of my post was about the fear involved in the male psyche......perhaps I should not have mentioned Kluwe at all as an example of someone working to shed it in spite of how ugly it may be. The status quo is every bit as ugly and more but there minions of sweepers swishing it all under the carpet to stay in the good graces of those above them.