Chris Kluwe - "I was fired by 2 cowards and a bigot"
- Thread starter The Napkin
- Start date
He's full of shit, yes.
He of course uses his family as a shield in the process of 'defending' himself.
He of course uses his family as a shield in the process of 'defending' himself.
Also, "I personally have gay family members who I love and support just as I do any family member" = "Some of my best friends are black."
The purpose of the piece is pretty clear if you read the article.
I haven't read the thread but that shouldn't stop me from formulating an opinion. I mean, really.
I haven't read the thread but that shouldn't stop me from formulating an opinion. I mean, really.
This... Right?RSN Diaspora said:
You just don't want your family members to have equal rights or be able to get married as that might make your marriage in some bizarre way less special.
Right coach?
It's not that I don't love and support them. I just want them to burn in hell.
I think Kluwe's lack of animus against the Raiders, given that his cut meant his NFL career was almost certainly over, and given that the media will likely believe almost anything embarrassing to the Raiders, gives him more credibility.
I mean, look at this thread. If there's anything the Raiders still know how to do well, it's the kicking game, and somebody trotted out a LOL Raiders when Marquette King is a future All-Pro.
The Vikes are a dysfunctional organization and shithead behavior thrives in dysfunctional organizations, it's hardly a stretch to believe football people could be homophobic, and Kluwe has an established record of honest writing/speaking. Trotting out teammates and PR-written half-baked denials is not cutting it for me.
I mean, look at this thread. If there's anything the Raiders still know how to do well, it's the kicking game, and somebody trotted out a LOL Raiders when Marquette King is a future All-Pro.
The Vikes are a dysfunctional organization and shithead behavior thrives in dysfunctional organizations, it's hardly a stretch to believe football people could be homophobic, and Kluwe has an established record of honest writing/speaking. Trotting out teammates and PR-written half-baked denials is not cutting it for me.
Mystic Merlin said:
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but how do we know? It's completely he said-he said.
The truth should come out--this dude said it in a room full of special teamers and I can't imagine they're all still on the Vikings.
Disclaimer: I think he did say it. But I don't think I would want to make a definitive statement on that based only on the voice of one guy who's views align with mine.
DrewDawg said:
The thing is, if you're a special teamer you're around the 45th guy on the roster unless you're Matthew Slater. Those guys in that room saw that Kluwe was replaced easily and know they're fungible as well. It'd be great if one of them felt secure enough in their job to speak up, but I don't see that happening.
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/01/homophobic_vikings_coach_mike_priefers_son_enjoys_calling_people_gay_on_twitter.php
If these tweets are legit, they support the theory that Coach Priefer can't resist disparaging homosexuals. Apples falling from trees and what-not.
If these tweets are legit, they support the theory that Coach Priefer can't resist disparaging homosexuals. Apples falling from trees and what-not.
Gunfighter 09 said:
Unless I missed the league wide outrage over his release, there was no Minnesota story to tell until Deadspin published it. And what better way to launch yourself into the punditry than trying to expose the culture of homophobia in the NFL.
He never fully commits to, "I was released because of my beliefs.", He just weaves it through the column enough fully out himself as a navel gazing chickenshit. At the same time he comes off as such a preening narcissist at times that it's easy to understand how he could completely miss why a coaching staff doesn't have to, and certainly doesn't need to, put up with the distractions that come from a loudmouthed punter whose production doesn't justify the distraction or salary. They asked him not to outkick the coverage and sacrifice his stats? Please. Every NFL punter can kick it forever but won't because it doesn't make any sense to in the context of the return game.
That being said, the coach might be a raging bigot. But it's sad that too many people jump for the shiny object without taking a harder look at the guy who's always been so desperate to be noticed.
So you are advocating for the actions of the coaching staff, because their decision to make a big deal about his pro-gay marriage columns in a local paper created a distraction?
What "distraction" was Kluwe responsible for? Not even the Vikings have alleged any.
What "distraction" was Kluwe responsible for? Not even the Vikings have alleged any.
I'm not advocating for the coaching staff but I think it's paint by numbers logic to quickly suggest that Kluwe was cut because he's a self styled freedom fighter. I think it's safe to say that drawing attention to yourself for things other than football is a distraction to an NFL coaching staff. That's not a novel thought. They crave control, normalcy, and routine. If I'm the coach or in admin, why do I want my players being asked questions about political issues being stirred up by an aging punter who's not carrying his weight on the field? Every time someone says something off key in response to those questions it's bad for the brand.
So you're saying that he was cut for performance related reasons, but it would have been justifiable to cut him for creating a "distraction" which amounted to publicly condemning a proposed anti-gay marriage amendment, something countless people were doing in the autumn of 2012?
The first may be true. The second is bullshit. Even if Kluwe's statements had a small impact on their decision, that's wrong and reprehensible.
The first may be true. The second is bullshit. Even if Kluwe's statements had a small impact on their decision, that's wrong and reprehensible.
Dirty Sanchez Forever said:
I said upthread that the distraction issue, from the team's standpoint, is legit (in theory, at least - I agree with leather that no one has yet alleged specific distractions).
Having said that, the bolded is a bit much. The worst that can be said about Kluwe's performance, IMO, is that he's not so much better than his competition as to justify his veteran salary. No one, including the Vikings, has said that he wasn't playing well.
Dirty Sanchez Forever said:
Preening narcissist? Desperate to be noticed? Are we talking about Chris Kluwe or Chad Johnson? Whether or not he was a fungible distraction, that is about the worst spin you could put on Kluwe's activism.
The Minnesota story before Kluwe spoke out was simply that he got beat out for a roster spot. The full story goes a bit deeper than that, including some bizarre passive aggressive bigotry from a supervisor. If he were just doing this to get noticed, I don't see why he would've waited until after the season. His purpose is clearly stated: he doesn't think a bigot such as Priefer deserves to stay employed at the level he is.
drleather2001 said:
Why though? You post from the Pet Peeves thread in response to the Duck Dynasty stuff:
Pet Peeve: People who conflate "Free Speech" with "Saying whatever the fuck I want without having to endure any negative repercussions".
I mean, I'm on Kluwe's side on this issue, but its seems pretty hypocritical to say "its bullshit if someone says something I believe in and gets fired but tough shit if you get fired for saying something which I disagree with".
If management decided that (a) we can save $1mm in cap space and (b) its a bit of a headache to deal with responding to ever "Chris Kluwe Punter Pundit" article/speech/twitter rant, I wouldn't fault them for taking into account 5-10% of their decision on (b).
I will say he should have left the I was cut due to all this as an unsaid implication.
It's not like we are all stupid enough to miss that. And fwiw I think it's a much less powerful article because of it and because he comes across with an agenda. If what he intended was just to highlight the bullshit he failed and that's a shame.
It takes a fair amount for someone who isn't gay who campaigned for gay rights at personal risk to come across as a self absorbed dick but he managed to straddle that shockingly well.
It's not like we are all stupid enough to miss that. And fwiw I think it's a much less powerful article because of it and because he comes across with an agenda. If what he intended was just to highlight the bullshit he failed and that's a shame.
It takes a fair amount for someone who isn't gay who campaigned for gay rights at personal risk to come across as a self absorbed dick but he managed to straddle that shockingly well.
PedrosRedGlove said:
I wanted to like this guy, I really did. I had a gay brother (who passed away due AIDS) and I've been a huge advocate of gay rights and gay marriage. On top of that Kluwe is well spoken and seems like a bright man. But Jesus, he's screams "Look at me guy, look at me....I'm different!!!". How many punters do Conan, Ellen, Larry King, and The Colbert Report? How many write blogs and tweets calling Drew Brees and Peyton Manning "Douchebags"? Advocacy or not, he's pretty fucking narcissistic from everything I've seen or read.
You want to believe his accusations and say his argument has merit? Great. But some of his message seems to get lost in his ego and agenda.
PS - Just looking at this picture makes me what to punch him in the face.
Come on. Jesus, do I find the cycle of backlash a little tiresome. Getting on him for the number of TV appearances is weak, considering that each may have a slightly different audience, (minus some overlap). Getting on his case based off one screenshot is extra weak sauce.BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
Calling him out for "Look at me, I'm different" is straight into Mean Girls territory. Essentially, you're saying we should dismiss him for his appearance, and ignore his message. GJGE
Because the duck guys were preaching intolerance while Kluwe was preaching tolerance?JKelley34 said:
You are conflating two issues: what they have the right to do, and what is the right (ie non-bullshit) thing to do. They are free to base their decision on the "distraction" that Kluwe caused just like they are free to fire someone who said "I like black people" in the lunchroom, but it doesn't make it right.
JKelley34 said:
It's only hypocrisy if DrLeather would claim they didn't have the right to fire him, which I don't think he did. He suggested he thinks they're assholes if they fired him for that reason, but that would be a value judgment on their reasons, not their right to do so.
The whole point of his position in the Duck Dynasty thread is the conflating of rights and judgment of assholery. As such, there is no inconsistency here as he is still keeping the issues distinct; the issue is what can be used as evidence of assholery--exercise of certain rights in certain circumstances can certainly be that.
To me, the larger problem for morals/values/norms in America is to think that rights have anything to do with personal morality--it has to do with having a moral government; trying to dispose of social moral issues with a discussion of rights is more likely to pervert the discussion.
JayMags71 said:
I was directly responding to PedrosRedGlove comment about Kluwe not being narcissistic. If you don't think he is, fine - but I definitely do. And when I watched the Colbert interview I kept thinking, "Did this fuck just fly in from Silverlake?" To me, a lot of his arrogance gets in the way of his message.
And sorry, I never saw Mean Girls. But I'm old enough to remember Heathers...I think I get your point. GJGE back at you!
Edit - removed the snarky "kiddo" part. I literally didn't even mean to type it. The asshole in me is on auto-pilot at times.
So he's a narcissist. Why should that trump the merits of his case, the way you seem to believe it does? That seems remarkably shallow.
It doesn't but it does damage the article because of instead of it having a fact based point it's all mixed in with innuendo and self promotion.JayMags71 said:
I think that the actions of the coach should, and it would appear will be, investigated and if true I hope it limits his career of leading young men.
That doesn't mean I have to think this is the best way to write this article.
Write what happened, that is pretty clear and damning without all the implications and self back patting etc and implied martyrdom. I note that the owner supported and encouraged him btw, that gets one line. He never says he raised the issue to Frazier or others, and yet calls them cowards.
In short the more I read it the less I like the writer's method.
Have you people read his other stuff or no?
This one was a very different style than a lot of it. That's why I think it was initially a narrative for record keeping. If that is the case, this is coming off a little like reading someone's diary and saying, "Geez, this is all about her." Granted, he made said diary public, but I think the reasons scan.
As far as someone who's looking to be an independent contractor of sorts going on a promotional tour, I dunno what to tell you--that's the business and I think it misses the point to criticize even a Skip Bayless for doing it when it's basically his job.
Edit: He was also on NPR with that guy from Baltimore when he wrote that first open letter about him and it was a pretty cool listen with nothing over the top. Might be a useful comp for anyne who's interested.
This one was a very different style than a lot of it. That's why I think it was initially a narrative for record keeping. If that is the case, this is coming off a little like reading someone's diary and saying, "Geez, this is all about her." Granted, he made said diary public, but I think the reasons scan.
As far as someone who's looking to be an independent contractor of sorts going on a promotional tour, I dunno what to tell you--that's the business and I think it misses the point to criticize even a Skip Bayless for doing it when it's basically his job.
Edit: He was also on NPR with that guy from Baltimore when he wrote that first open letter about him and it was a pretty cool listen with nothing over the top. Might be a useful comp for anyne who's interested.
JayMags71 said:
First off, great. We agree he's probably desperate for attention. That was my major point of my original post because PRG didn't necessarily believe that (if I interpreted his post correctly).
There are many athletes who have come out for gay rights (Michael Irvin, Steve Nash, among others) who don't come off so self absorbed. And when somebody is so arrogant and unlikable, human nature makes us focus less on the message and more on the messenger. Maybe I'm wrong...maybe he's a charismatic and affable guy, but I don't see it and I've watched him in numerous interviews and read many of his blogs.
And hey, his argument against Priefer is probably 100% true (I don't see Priefer suing for defamation) but I believe Kluwe less because he strikes me as someone who is starved for attention. He couldn't help but make it partially about him even though there is really no evidence that his advocacy was the reason he was waived. All that does is hurt his credibility and it wasn't needed if Priefer truly said those disgusting comments.
I hate seeing this guy as poster boy gay rights because I think he hurts, and more importantly, confuses the cause.
Of course he's starved for attention. Just not necessarily for the reasons you seem eager to project upon him.BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
Seems like he was getting plenty of attention before this last piece...
Anyway, I just found this which hasn't been brought up--it's from the "Vote Ray Guy" "incident":
This seems like one of those times, as per before in the Spikes article I posted, when Priefer could have just, say, not given a shit and refused to comment on it.
Edit: How many hours a day does a punter even work, anyway?
Anyway, I just found this which hasn't been brought up--it's from the "Vote Ray Guy" "incident":
This seems like one of those times, as per before in the Spikes article I posted, when Priefer could have just, say, not given a shit and refused to comment on it.
Edit: How many hours a day does a punter even work, anyway?
drleather2001 said:
You're tagging the team with tacitly condemning the amendment. It's a stretch to show that kind of passive aggressive intent.
I'm not suggesting that he caused a distraction. I'm suggesting that he was a distraction. And in a hard cap environment where you're weighing the on field performance of a punter against his salary and replacement cost, not thinking well of him can make for a much faster and easier decision to move on.
It doesn't necessarily trump it but it should signal the need to dig a little deeper before unequivocally buying in, because it's harder for him to evaluate situations in which he's involved with the necessary level of objectivity and introspection. The Ray Guy protest was classic "look at me" behavior. He blew 15k on a fine for a silly publicity stunt. The outburst during the lockout was odd and sad. The back and forth with Nate Jackson was worse, a punter giving shit to a guy who was actually playing the game and highlighting his stats as evidence of his superiority as a football player. He's a fucking punter.
No one will ever know truth until one of the other players corroborates one way or the other. My own guess is that the coach hated him personally and didn't worry about replacing his production or they already planned to get rid of him after the season, so he was willing to work blue in order to stick it to Kluwe on his way out the door. Like a severance package for being a habitual pain in the ass. But good on Kluwe for going after these guys to get more space on Deadspin or wherever. They were dumb enough to give him the ammo.
This too.
A former 250 pound NFL linebacker suggests claims that anything short of direct physical confrontation is cowardly; details at 11.
There's a fundamental disconnect, I think, in beginning a paragraph with an appeal to what is involved in getting objectivity and introspection when the arc of the argument leads to dismissing someone's views simply because they occupy one of the lower ranks in the football caste system.
Being irritated by the Ray Gay stunt... I find that just perplexing.
Man, I hate the whole falling back on the No One Will Ever Know the Truth gambit. Did you see who the Vikings brought in to do the investigation? Heck, my first reaction was "Maybe we take sports a little too seriously..."
I guess the biggest question I have for those who are annoyed with Kluwe is: Why do you care? Maybe he's a narcissist, maybe not? Who cares? Why does a discussion of the messenger get elevated above the ideas presented?
To me, it's like being at the medal ceremony for the S.E.A.L.s who went in and got Osama bin Laden and leaning over to the person next to you and saying, "I heard the Night Stalker flying the lead MH-60 is actually kind of a dick sometimes." Great.
Dirty Sanchez Forever said:
There's a fundamental disconnect, I think, in beginning a paragraph with an appeal to what is involved in getting objectivity and introspection when the arc of the argument leads to dismissing someone's views simply because they occupy one of the lower ranks in the football caste system.
Being irritated by the Ray Gay stunt... I find that just perplexing.
Dirty Sanchez Forever said:
Man, I hate the whole falling back on the No One Will Ever Know the Truth gambit. Did you see who the Vikings brought in to do the investigation? Heck, my first reaction was "Maybe we take sports a little too seriously..."
I guess the biggest question I have for those who are annoyed with Kluwe is: Why do you care? Maybe he's a narcissist, maybe not? Who cares? Why does a discussion of the messenger get elevated above the ideas presented?
To me, it's like being at the medal ceremony for the S.E.A.L.s who went in and got Osama bin Laden and leaning over to the person next to you and saying, "I heard the Night Stalker flying the lead MH-60 is actually kind of a dick sometimes." Great.
I don't care if he's a narcissist when it comes to most of his advocacy pieces. I care on this one because his truthfulness is critical to the article and a narcissist who just lost his career would be more likely to lie about why that happened.
Not sure I'm totally understanding the Ray Guy thing, but did Kluwe respond to a public message from his special teams coach by sending out two semi-mocking tweets? His coach may be a raging asshole to care about it, but that probably wasn't the best way to keep employment.
To be clear, I generally support Kluwes advocacy and think his special team coach is probably a dick and a bigot. To be honest I find this to be one of his Kluwes less interesting articles. I'm glad he exposed Priefer if what he said was true, but the way he did it wasn't that interesting and I find the shots at Frazier and Spielman not very compelling.
Not sure I'm totally understanding the Ray Guy thing, but did Kluwe respond to a public message from his special teams coach by sending out two semi-mocking tweets? His coach may be a raging asshole to care about it, but that probably wasn't the best way to keep employment.
To be clear, I generally support Kluwes advocacy and think his special team coach is probably a dick and a bigot. To be honest I find this to be one of his Kluwes less interesting articles. I'm glad he exposed Priefer if what he said was true, but the way he did it wasn't that interesting and I find the shots at Frazier and Spielman not very compelling.
So Priefer told Kluwe to focus on his job during the middle of the season... I'm surprised that any Patriots fans would have a problem with this.Reverend said:
I think it's humorous that the anti-Kluwe folks are using the "he's just a punter" critique when it suits them (as if a punter's opinions on non-football matters are less valid or worthwhile than an even bigger jock's), but are quick to buy the argument that he was somehow not focusing enough, and if he had only stopped writing 300 word columns every few weeks, he would have been better at his job. The two points are contradictory.
drleather2001 said:
Not only that, but the "he's just a punter" stuff is tied up in exactly the kind of points he's trying to make. He's got less claim to have a voice because he doesn't perform the ostensibly manlier elements of the game. I'm sort of astonished someone could write that and not catch themselves. And he's a coward himself because he didn't deliver his points on the front end of a right cross. Shut the fuck up, the men are speaking.
Watching some football fans directly take those queues from players and coaches deluding themselves about the adolescent fantasies of how football is "war" and blah blah blah never ceases to amaze me.
edit-clarity
How closely did you read that? Kluwe's response was not diplomatic to be sure, but the coach made that statement to the press and said he had not told Kluwe. As a Pats fan, I'd be shocked and concerned to see a Pats coach do something like that as it would signal a breach in the organizational approach; Kluwe's tweets are consistent with that, but his approach mimics his coach's and control needs to be established by coaches.lostjumper said:
I think Belichick might punish a player for doing that. I think Belichick would rain sulfur on a coach doing that.
Maybe not just the activism, but the attitude? Kluwe refers to a rough patch with regards to performance -- sounded like a couple of bad games. I could see his special teams coach getting some heat based on his squad's performance, getting pissed and telling Kluwe to buckle down, and Kluwe being a smartass about it. It's a high pressure environment and I imagine a lot of factors coming in to play, activism being a big one of course.drleather2001 said:
Kluwe was engaging in activism for quite a while before he was let go. I think it contributed to his release, but if it was a really significant issue he would have been gone sooner.
JohntheBaptist said:
No, I wrote it on purpose. He is just a punter and I'm sure he's painfully aware of that place within the hierarchy of an NFL lockerroom, which has in part driven his desire to be noticed over the years. .
Reverend said:
When the purpose of the message is to directly or indirectly end careers I think you need to look at the messenger. He's making allegations that could jeopardize the careers of 1 to as many as 3 people so the standard for playing it down the middle is a little bit different than it is for some half assed message board posts. I don't know much about Leslie Frazier but he appears to be among the nicest people in the league based on the outpouring of sympathy after he got fired. Most of that could be sympathetic media created noise but it's weird that Kluwe characterizes him completely differently than the league does.
And I'm not irritated by the Ray Guy stunt but I think knowingly drawing a 15k fine to see the joke through sheds some light on who the guy is.
I agree that the tone of this article does not help the message he is trying to convey. Though, as has been pointed out, Kluwe admits this is just a revised journal entry.
Other than that I think you guys have just farther proven the point I was trying to make. You really seem to detest him for merely speaking up for what he believes in. I just think there's a lot of room between 'brash outspoken activist' and 'navel gazing narcissistic attention whore,' and that Kluwe is a lot closer to the former. Nothing I've seen has me ready to diagnose Kluwe with a personality disorder. But if you think the Ray Guy "stunt" is some deep character revealing moment, we'll probably have to disagree on that.
Other than that I think you guys have just farther proven the point I was trying to make. You really seem to detest him for merely speaking up for what he believes in. I just think there's a lot of room between 'brash outspoken activist' and 'navel gazing narcissistic attention whore,' and that Kluwe is a lot closer to the former. Nothing I've seen has me ready to diagnose Kluwe with a personality disorder. But if you think the Ray Guy "stunt" is some deep character revealing moment, we'll probably have to disagree on that.