Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

My (once) new favorite non-Patriot: Brendon Ayanbadejo


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#51 Curtis Pride

  • 714 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:23 AM

It might be helpful to look at it as similar to an advertiser pulling ads from a paper/magazine/TV network when they disagree with the medium's message.

#52 mpjc

  • 1378 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

A paper that he blogs for expresses he disagrees with, so he takes his ball and goes home?


Just to clarify, he maintains that his issue is not with the opinion per se. From his Twitter account:

My main issue with the Pioneer Press editorial is this: It's a lie. I have no problem with them taking a position I disagree with. What concerns me is them presenting a completely biased piece (word choice, examples used, conclusions) as a neutral position. That's not only irresponsible journalism, it's massively hypocritical. Have the courage of your convictions. Attach your name to what you believe in. Don't try to confuse people through obfuscation and selected presentation of arguments. It ruins discussion, and you should be ashamed. I will not abide lying. A stable society has to be built on a foundation of trust, and that editorial just eroded some of it away.


Edited by mpjc, 05 November 2012 - 09:25 AM.


#53 lostjumper

  • 897 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:01 AM

It might be helpful to look at it as similar to an advertiser pulling ads from a paper/magazine/TV network when they disagree with the medium's message.


I don't think its too similar. An advertiser can't write a response to an article, its only option is to continue to advertise, or pull the advertisement. Someone who writes for the newspaper could actually write a response.


And if he doesn't have a problem with the position, just hows its stated, then he should write an editorial pointing out the "obfuscation and selected presentation of arguments." He talks about how it ruins the argument, but he doesn't seem to want to discuss it.

#54 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 13012 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:19 AM

Whatever. I don't know anyone who reads the Pioneer Press over the Star Tribune.

#55 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16147 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:36 AM

I'm not really getting the outrage. Kluwe's acknowledged their viewpoint but regards it as dishonest and ultimately wrong.

Life's too short to kowtow to bigotry in the name of "fairness".

#56 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 11985 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

And if he doesn't have a problem with the position, just hows its stated, then he should write an editorial pointing out the "obfuscation and selected presentation of arguments." He talks about how it ruins the argument, but he doesn't seem to want to discuss it.


Sure, if you ignore his twitter account, where he has discussed it. And the posts here that have quoted his twitter statement that, you know, discusses it.

But please, feel free to ignore the statement from Kluwe where he "discusses it" and keep banging the drum about...ummm...frankly, I'm a little confused on what the fuck you think you're talking about.

#57 Stevie1der

  • 376 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

I'm not really getting the outrage. Kluwe's acknowledged their viewpoint but regards it as dishonest and ultimately wrong.

Life's too short to kowtow to bigotry in the name of "fairness".


My main problem with Kluwe leaving the Pioneer Press is it feeds into the niche driven echo chambers that have come to dominate the internet and media at large. He misses a real chance to reach the demographics who eschew social media in favor of a traditional newspaper format. By leaving the Press he may very well be severing his only link to those who most need to hear his message.

#58 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24796 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

Maybe he feels like he'd be a colossal hypocrite to contribute to a publication that he sees as engaging in the foulest bigotry dressed up as "fairness."

#59 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 6867 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:11 PM

My main issue with the Pioneer Press editorial is this: It's a lie. I have no problem with them taking a position I disagree with. What concerns me is them presenting a completely biased piece (word choice, examples used, conclusions) as a neutral position. That's not only irresponsible journalism, it's massively hypocritical. Have the courage of your convictions. Attach your name to what you believe in. Don't try to confuse people through obfuscation and selected presentation of arguments. It ruins discussion, and you should be ashamed. I will not abide lying. A stable society has to be built on a foundation of trust, and that editorial just eroded some of it away.

Aren't editorials biased pieces that don't come from neutral positions by their very nature? This is the part of the argument I'm not understanding. Suggesting it comes from a neutral position seems to miss the point of writing an editorial. It's supposed to be persuasive and biased.

Edited by kenneycb, 05 November 2012 - 01:12 PM.


#60 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 11985 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:13 PM

My main problem with Kluwe leaving the Pioneer Press is it feeds into the niche driven echo chambers that have come to dominate the internet and media at large. He misses a real chance to reach the demographics who eschew social media in favor of a traditional newspaper format. By leaving the Press he may very well be severing his only link to those who most need to hear his message.


Honestly, do you think that anyone in Minnesota reads the Pioneer Press for Chris Kluwe's editorial content AND is unaware that he's the punter for the Vikings?

#61 lostjumper

  • 897 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:11 PM

Sure, if you ignore his twitter account, where he has discussed it. And the posts here that have quoted his twitter statement that, you know, discusses it.

But please, feel free to ignore the statement from Kluwe where he "discusses it" and keep banging the drum about...ummm...frankly, I'm a little confused on what the fuck you think you're talking about.


Wait, what? This is an emotionally charged topic for some people, and you're obviously one of them. I'm not sure why you are so upset though. If you re-read my posts, I don't come down on either side of the issue, and don't in anyway criticize Kluwe for his stance. Its his opinion and it's great that he feels so strongly about it and has been a vocal proponent of his belief. I criticized him for his reaction. I would have made the exact same post if the positions were switched. Would you have been so vehement about yours?

Like Kenneycb said, it's an editorial. Newspapers print editorials all the time. They will often post editorials that come down on opposite sides of an idea to generate thought on the idea. That's why I suggested Kluwe write one and submit his opinion on the amendment. I mean, look at your newspaper's editorial section today. I bet there is column advocating voting for Obama, and another advocating voting for Romney. I'd be curious the paper has ever run an editorial supporting gay marriage?

#62 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 11985 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

Wait, what? This is an emotionally charged topic for some people, and you're obviously one of them. I'm not sure why you are so upset though. If you re-read my posts, I don't come down on either side of the issue, and don't in anyway criticize Kluwe for his stance. Its his opinion and it's great that he feels so strongly about it and has been a vocal proponent of his belief. I criticized him for his reaction. I would have made the exact same post if the positions were switched. Would you have been so vehement about yours?


I don't want to turn this into V&N, but that seems like a very childish response. A paper that he blogs for expresses he disagrees with, so he takes his ball and goes home?


1. Since his "stance" is his "reaction", I am still unsure of just what the fuck you are talking about.

2. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that Kluwe DID respond. Kluwe has not "taken his ball and gone home"; he has taken his response to twitter. He has chosen to not work for, nor take payment for his response, to the Pioneer Press. He has clearly identified his issues with their actions and explained his own actions.

NONE of that is "childish" or "taking his ball ad going home". Ergo, your criticism of his reaction has been off-base and confusing.

3. Lastly, my "vehement" rebuke of you is completely unrelated to the issue of gay marriage or Chris Kluwe. But it's always good internet strategery to question the motives of the person calling you on the carpet.

And if you think that's vehement, you should avoid V&N altogether.

#63 lostjumper

  • 897 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

1. Since his "stance" is his "reaction", I am still unsure of just what the fuck you are talking about.

2. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that Kluwe DID respond. Kluwe has not "taken his ball and gone home"; he has taken his response to twitter. He has chosen to not work for, nor take payment for his response, to the Pioneer Press. He has clearly identified his issues with their actions and explained his own actions.

NONE of that is "childish" or "taking his ball ad going home". Ergo, your criticism of his reaction has been off-base and confusing.

3. Lastly, my "vehement" rebuke of you is completely unrelated to the issue of gay marriage or Chris Kluwe. But it's always good internet strategery to question the motives of the person calling you on the carpet.

And if you think that's vehement, you should avoid V&N altogether.


1. No, Kluwe's stance is that he supports gay marriage. His reaction to an editorial viewpoint that was different to his own was to cut all ties with the newspaper. Seems like an over reaction to me.

2. You are correct. Kluwe responded with a couple of tweets. Instead of saying he didn't respond, I should have said his response was lacking. I suggested that a better response would have been to submit an editorial of his own, or respond on his blog that the paper publishes. Something more than a couple of 100 word texts. I look forward to him further explaining his position by liking GLAAD on facebook profile.

3. Sorry, the way you worded things in your post seemed angry to me, but I must have misread you.

After this post, I'm done talking about Kluwe and this issue as there isn't anything to gain by it. I'd much rather discuss actual football in BBTL.

Edited by lostjumper, 05 November 2012 - 05:11 PM.


#64 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 11985 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:19 PM

1. No, Kluwe's stance is that he supports gay marriage. His reaction to an editorial viewpoint that was different to his own was to cut all ties with the newspaper. Seems like an over reaction to me.


He stopped taking money from the Pioneer Press. He instead self-published his response. And he'll probably be featured in the Star Tribune's op-ed page tomorrow morning.

Because he is a "celebrity" columnist, the Pioneer Press loses unique page views that Kluwe was bringing. It was BY FAR a better choice for Kluwe to walk away from the Pioneer Press if he differs with their editorial, because that's the one way he can impact their business.

#65 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 6867 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:23 PM

This still doesn't change the fact Kluwe doesn't understand what the point of an editorial is.

#66 PC Drunken Friar

  • 3326 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:38 PM

This still doesn't change the fact Kluwe doesn't understand what the point of an editorial is.


maybe he thinks that editorials that promote bigotry shouldn't be printed

#67 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6384 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

This still doesn't change the fact Kluwe doesn't understand what the point of an editorial is.

It's not about being an editorial. The Pioneer Press had said they would not take sides on any of the candidates or any of the ballot questions. The editorial was supposed to be fair and balanced, but the bulk of the arguments were for the amendment (i.e., against gay marriage). That's why Kluwe felt the Pioneer Press were dishonest, because they said they were going to remain impartial and then published an article that was widely seen as taking sides.

The original editorial: http://www.twincitie...ment?source=pkg
A clarification / apology posted today: http://www.twincitie...riage-amendment

In that editorial, keeping with our Opinion Page decision this year to not endorse candidates or to recommend a yes or no vote on the amendments, we wrote: "Minnesotans will decide how to vote on this issue. As has been the case with legislative races and the Voter ID amendment, the Pioneer Press is not endorsing one way or another."

But the piece was widely read as favoring the amendment, and many people considered our "not endorsing one way or another" line to be disingenuous at best. Clearly, we failed to deliver what we had meant to. And it's easy enough to see why people read the editorial as favoring the arguments for the amendment.



#68 Blacken


  • Paddy Tanniger the Caddy Manager


  • 7558 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:59 PM

1. No, Kluwe's stance is that he supports gay marriage. His reaction to an editorial viewpoint that was different to his own was to cut all ties with the newspaper. Seems like an over reaction to me.

It's completely reasonable to sever ties with an organization that gives voice to shitbags (though Kluwe didn't, he did because it was a hit piece).

Edited by Blacken, 05 November 2012 - 05:59 PM.


#69 crystalline

  • 1913 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:37 PM

I was turned off by Kluwe's two-month old letter quoted on Deadspin, it seemed juvenile.

But I respect the guy a lot more after this.

Have the courage of your convictions. Attach your name to what you believe in. Don't try to confuse people through obfuscation and selected presentation of arguments. It ruins discussion, and you should be ashamed. I will not abide lying. A stable society has to be built on a foundation of trust, and that editorial just eroded some of it away.


There's a lot of insight there-
What newspapers have been doing, trying to take both sides of any issue, does not work because it leads to both sides trying to be as extreme as possible to tilt the mean towards them.
He's right, it ruins discussion.

So much for the 'stupid punter'.

Now that Weatherford has raised the bar for punter tackling, he's going to have to up his on-field game too...

#70 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 6867 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:39 PM

A fair and balanced argument that doesn't take a side isn't an opinion piece. I feel I have equal right to mock the newspaper for presenting it as such.

#71 Reverend


  • needs sharper knives


  • 19292 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:52 PM

The original editorial: http://www.twincitie...ment?source=pkg


Thanks for linking to this, as I might not have bothered--it's like a clinic on how to use only technically empirically true statements to... do something else. Quoted nowhere:

The Nazis say that the Jews killed Jesus. The Jews, however, deny that they are at fault, which means that Jesus brought it upon himself.



#72 Saby

  • PipPip
  • 1247 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:59 PM

Good on him. He has every right to voice his opinion. I just hope if a player voices the opposite opinion about how they feel about the sanctity of marriage, they aren't dragged through the mud.

#73 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21048 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

Good on him. He has every right to voice his opinion. I just hope if a player voices the opposite opinion about how they feel about the sanctity of marriage, they aren't dragged through the mud.


What do you mean 'dragged through the mud'?

#74 MakMan44


  • SoSH Member


  • 10112 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:37 PM

I was turned off by Kluwe's two-month old letter quoted on Deadspin, it seemed juvenile.

But I respect the guy a lot more after this.



There's a lot of insight there-
What newspapers have been doing, trying to take both sides of any issue, does not work because it leads to both sides trying to be as extreme as possible to tilt the mean towards them.
He's right, it ruins discussion.

So much for the 'stupid punter'.

Now that Weatherford has raised the bar for punter tackling, he's going to have to up his on-field game too...


Do you read Deadspin often? It's honestly the most insanely juvenile sports blog I have ever been to.

#75 loshjott

  • 3698 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:53 PM

Ayanbadejo was active in this campaign to the end as it won 52-48.

Now back to hating him and his team.

Edited by loshjott, 07 November 2012 - 03:54 PM.


#76 Reverend


  • needs sharper knives


  • 19292 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 05:16 PM

What do you mean 'dragged through the mud'?


All view points are equally valid!!

#77 URI


  • stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of life


  • 9186 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:00 PM

A fair and balanced argument that doesn't take a side isn't an opinion piece. I feel I have equal right to mock the newspaper for presenting it as such.


Kluwe said that he thought the Pioneer Press was lying by presenting a biased editorial for the same-sex marraige ban as an unbiased editorial. They did this after taking the pledge to be unbiased when it came to candidates/ballot questions.

Now I'm not sure if that's all true, but the dots are easily connected.

#78 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 21585 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:53 AM

Kluwe also supports "Guy Rights"

Posted Image

#79 JerBear

  • 761 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:20 PM

Is this the catch-all Kluwe thread too? I thought this was funny. The site is for a webcomic about video-game testing but they include tales from people that actually worked in the field. Kluwe thought he'd contribute.

http://trenchescomic...ame-and-fortune

#80 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3033 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:51 PM


Fuck this guy. Now I'm against gay marriage.



Brendon Ayanbadejo@brendon310

New England does some suspect stuff on offense. Can't really respect it. Comparable to a cheap shot b4 a fight


Retweeted by shalise manza young


#81 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 38221 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:00 PM

Is this guy still your favorite non-Patriot?

#82 Darnell's Son

  • 3004 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:02 PM

I'm with Banned on this issue. There needs to be an Amendment to the Constitution!

#83 Toe Nash

  • 2739 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:05 PM

Yeah, his explanation later was better. I thought he was going to make a point about Mankins' extracurriculars or contact by the WRs or pick plays, but he said the hurry-up was cheap because New England has a good enough offense to win without calling plays when the defense wasn't set. Then he referenced "the organization that did Spygate" as if plenty of other offenses don't run quick-snap plays. Sigh.

#84 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 38221 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:06 PM

Yeah, his explanation later was better. I thought he was going to make a point about Mankins' extracurriculars or contact by the WRs or pick plays, but he said the hurry-up was cheap because New England has a good enough offense to win without calling plays when the defense wasn't set. Then he referenced "the organization that did Spygate" as if plenty of other offenses don't run quick-snap plays. Sigh.


He tweeted "18-1".

That was the entire tweet.

#85 Darnell's Son

  • 3004 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:09 PM

Yeah, his explanation later was better. I thought he was going to make a point about Mankins' extracurriculars or contact by the WRs or pick plays, but he said the hurry-up was cheap because New England has a good enough offense to win without calling plays when the defense wasn't set. Then he referenced "the organization that did Spygate" as if plenty of other offenses don't run quick-snap plays. Sigh.


Well, I hope he doesn't blow out his ACL next week...

#86 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 38221 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:10 PM

To be fair, they do tweet with heart. You can practically feel Ray Lewis's energy coming from the tweets.
Tweets All / No replies




#87 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21048 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:11 PM

I hope he's drunk.

#88 Soxy Brown

  • 2358 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:15 PM

I lived in Baltimore for 4 years. Baltimore fucking sucks. I hope nothing but pain reaches the denizens of Baltimore. The people who live there are scum.

And they're shitty fans to boot. Ravens are good? "Alright! Go Ravens!" Ravens suck? "What a bunch of losers." They are the definition of bandwagon fans.

#89 Turrable

  • 2087 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:38 PM

That 6th tweet makes for some word filter comedy gold

#90 soxfaninyankeeland


  • Magic Johnson of Bird AIDS


  • 2585 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:56 PM

So their offense is fine, but the pace at which they execute that offense is suspect. Okay.


The 18-1 tweet is hilarious. Pointing to it as some kind of failure. Despite not winning the Super Bowl they are still the best team Ayanbadejo has ever seen. If this guy ever failed like that it would be the high point of his career.

#91 singaporesoxfan

  • 3200 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

By the same token, the Ravens should never use play-action since it works by taking advantage of defenses not expecting a pass.

#92 cgori

  • 1429 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:02 AM

And he never check-raises in poker games.

#93 ObstructedView

  • 579 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:22 AM

And no blitzing, since that can create unfair situations where there are more rushers than blockers. Really violates the whole "mano y mano" thing.

#94 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 7744 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:30 AM

The notion that the Pats are "good enough to win without X" is asinine. Taking advantage of something within the rules is by definition kosher and the "spirit of the game" concept that is apparently behind these comments is pure fantasy.

What a dope.

#95 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 7744 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:31 AM

I hope he's drunk.

I hope he was totally sober and can't walk away from that drivel.

#96 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3033 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:45 AM

While we're at it, why does Brady feel the need to use play action pass? What kind of pussy has to pretend to hand it off? Brady is too good to use that gimmicky crap. Real men point to their target and throw it. Shit, if Brady wanted to show some real professionalism, he'd let the defense know the play before the snap.

#97 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24796 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:41 AM

The notion that the Pats are "good enough to win without X" is asinine. Taking advantage of something within the rules is by definition kosher and the "spirit of the game" concept that is apparently behind these comments is pure fantasy.

What a dope.


The pats didn't really use the hurry-up yesterday either.

#98 johnmd20


  • King of the Avatards


  • 15024 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:41 AM

And fake punts and on sides kicks are bull shit. Why does everyone try to fake their way through the game? Play it the right way dammit!

#99 epraz


  • SoSH Member


  • 5228 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:45 AM

The pats didn't really use the hurry-up yesterday either.


I assume he was talking about the goal line play after the long play got them down there.

#100 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24796 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:46 AM

I assume he was talking about the goal line play after the long play got them down there.


To which I respond: Waah.

Cue Herm Edwards' rant.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users