Priefer Deserves His Own Thread

[Hunter Morrow]

You have a coworker obsessed with StarWars. Every conversation is sprinkled with bits of trivia from Star Wars. Whole conversations get steered toward Star Wars at inappropriate times. A deadline is looming and work needs to be planned out and you hear "Qui Gonn would have just reversed the polarity of the phasers and made the situation all shiny."

And you say "__________________

"Phasers? What is this, that crappy Star Trek? And why is a Jedi Knight using ranged weaponry anyhow?"

[DanAS]

Read my posts. I have never said Kluwe was released because of his views. I am a Vikes fan. I know the stats. His performance was below average and he was highly paid. I am talking about Priefer's statement, not Kluwe's performance. And while I do see Kluwe as a whistleblower and accept that he blew the whistle on some inappropriate conduct, that doesn't mean I have to support him across the board. The guy was was below average even gross punting average, slightly below the median in net punting average, and among the worst in the league in kicks inside the 20. That's not a guy you keep when you are paying him a veteran's salary.

As for the "polarizing" point, I would prefer to use the word "provocative" instead. And I'll fully accept that word. Consider the analogy to criticizing those who complain about interracial marriage (as many people did back in the day). Would such criticism be polarizing? I guess so, but to not criticize that conduct is to accept bigotry. I view homophobia as just another form of bigotry. It is true that some interpretations of some faiths support homophobia, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. Anyway, I take your point that I was talking about social unity, but not exactly singing Kumbaya. Fair enough. That's my schtick, for better or worse.

[Mothman]

But if they don't release the full report (evidence) - then we will never know for sure and then what else is there left to do but make assumptions. You can't wait for the 'evidence' if they won't release it.

Kluwe intends to file a suit this week and he and his lawyer will try to get the full report released as part of the discovery process so it may be released soon.

[Just Me]

Kluwe intends to file a suit this week and he and his lawyer will try to get the full report released as part of the discovery process so it may be released soon.

Just as an aside, the Vikings may even support that (although not overtly). I know in some cases, a company policy will prohibit the release of ANY of these types of documents due to the possibility of litigation initiated by parties mentioned in these documents if the documents were made public. If the court issues an order, it insulates the company to some degree. Not saying that is the case, but that may actually be beneficial to the Vikings if (and that's a big IF) there are not other 'embarrassing' issues uncovered during the investigation of Kluwe's allegations.

[Just Me]

I view homophobia as just another form of bigotry.

I don't disagree. I assume you are using the term (as is accurate to apply to Priefer's statement) to mean: "an extreme and irrational hatred to homosexuality and homosexual people." Would faiths that do not support homosexuality as acceptable conduct within their tenets be considered 'homophobic'? (Believer's actions based on those tenets might be homophobic, but my question to you is: Would you contend that faiths which do not accept homosexuality completely, are homophobic?

(I'm not trying to 'bait' you here . I see the term homophobic used pretty loosely sometimes, and I want to ensure we are all talking about the same thing.)

[Purple Reign]

Kluwe intends to file a suit this week and he and his lawyer will try to get the full report released as part of the discovery process so it may be released soon.

Possibly, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it. If it does go to trial, it probably won't be for another year or more. In the mean time, all we can do is speculate.

Another reason why people make assumptions is because unless there is physical evidence such as a video or actual text messages, the so called 'evidence' is just what witnesses say and of course we all know everyone always tells the truth and never lies. For example, the current Jesse Ventura case - he has witnesses that claim the fight never happened and the other side has witnesses that claim it did so who do you believe?

[PurpleHalo]

What if Priefer had said that all black people (let's say he used a different word than "black") or all Jewish people should be sent to an island and nuked? Two games? I don't think so.

We can play the what if game all day, but what is the point of this?

What if Priefer actually took people to an Island and nuked them? Well what then?

Football locker rooms are not a place you want mom to be seeing ya, a lot of crap is said it's a hard environment. I'm sure there are 32 locker rooms in the NFL where statements that would piss somebody off are made. And isn't it funny how Kluwe was so concerned about those poor underage chicks who supposedly dated a couple former players, that he came out with it in 2014. It's all a witchhunt, and I don't like witchhunts, Kluwe is simply trying to bring down the organization over being cut, and I wish he would just go away.

[DanAS]

I don't disagree. I assume you are using the term (as is accurate to apply to Priefer's statement) to mean: "an extreme and irrational hatred to homosexuality and homosexual people." Would faiths that do not support homosexuality as acceptable conduct within their tenets be considered 'homophobic'? (Believer's actions based on those tenets might be homophobic, but my question to you is: Would you contend that faiths which do not accept homosexuality completely, are homophobic?

(I'm not trying to 'bait' you here . I see the term homophobic used pretty loosely sometimes, and I want to ensure we are all talking about the same thing.)

Your question is a fair one. I'm not sure I have a glib answer.

There is no question whatsoever that the kind of hateful rhetoric attributed to Priefer is awful, just awful. But if you have a sensitive soul who doesn't wish to dehumanize or humiliate a gay person, and yet truly believes that such conduct is against God's law and that those who engage in it need help, that's a horse of a very different color.

How would I characterize the latter view? A whole hell of a lot different than my own. But would I "punish" a coach for expressing that view? Of course not.

As for what is meant by "bigot," I guess its a vague term -- just like "prejudiced," "biased," etc.

Hell, my new book is about the definition of "God." If that can be a somewhat ambiguous term, then certainly so can "bigot."

[Just Me]

Your question is a fair one. I'm not sure I have a glib answer.

There is no question whatsoever that the kind of hateful rhetoric attributed to Priefer is awful, just awful. But if you have a sensitive soul who doesn't wish to dehumanize or humiliate a gay person, and yet truly believes that such conduct is against God's law and that those who engage in it need help, that's a horse of a very different color.

How would I characterize the latter view? A whole hell of a lot different than my own. But would I "punish" a coach for expressing that view? Of course not.

As for what is meant by "bigot," I guess its a vague term -- just like "prejudiced," "biased," etc.

Hell, my new book is about the definition of "God." If that can be a somewhat ambiguous term, then certainly so can "bigot."

Thanks for taking a 'stab' at it. I think much of the rhetoric that gets...emotional (for lack of a better term) comes from that conflict that exists between those who have sincere beliefs that this is a violation of the tenets of their religion and others who may use a 'blanket label' (again, for lack of a better term) to describe others that believe differently on this issue. Having said that, Priefer's comments fit the definition of 'homophobic' even if the tenets of his religion do not support homosexuality, so I think the descriptor in this case is accurate. So don't read into that as a justification for Priefer. He could have the most sincere belief on the planet that homosexuality is wrong, but when that belief is expressed in 'extermination' comments, it becomes a homophobic statement.

[Purpnation]

I think there is a good case to be made that Priefer let off steam in retaliation to Kluwe's attitude, we don't even know if Priefer was or is anti-same-sex marriage at that.

What are we going to do with the use of either the "n" word in the NFL or a slightly altered version as heard in some rap songs?? A white person certainly couldn't use that term. Why could African Americans be allowed to use it? Double Standard or it's hard to actually police people for saying the wrong thing.

If you don't understand why it is acceptable for a black person to say that word, and not a white person, then you are a very, very dense human being.

[Mothman]

If you don't understand why it is acceptable for a black person to say that word, and not a white person, then you are a very, very dense human being.

I'm sure he understands it. It's not hard to grasp why there's a perceived difference there but it still represents a double standard. If the word is inherently offensive then, logically, nobody should be using it, right? Since that's not the case, it brings us back to the whole issue of context. Who says something, when they say it, how they say it, who they say it too, etc. all end up making a difference in how it's ultimately perceived.

In the end, it ends up being about the intent of the speaker and whether someone chooses to be offended or not.

[Delaqure]

I'd like to address the "homophobia" in the locker room for a moment. The definition of a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. Modern rules of society simply are standards we apply to certain situations. Rules of decency are in place for a reason so that while I can work with the sex I am attracted to I don't share the same bathroom nor do I shower with them.
When I work out I don't share the same locker room either. So the classic feelings of athletes not wishing to share a locker room with a homosexual is perfectly understandable. Now if that feeling leaks out into the workplace such as onto the football field then that is a whole other issue. Don't mistake me here. I am not saying homosexuals in the locker room would be walking around lusting after everyone any more that a heterosexual sharing a locker room with members of the opposite sex would be lusting after all the naked people in that locker room. But we still don't do it and I dare say a lot of folks would be very uncomfortable in that situation. But we sure don't call women manhaters for not wanting to share a locker room with a man and we wouldn't call a man a woman hater for not wanting to share a locker room with women. I know there could be a lot of jokes about this but I think you get my point.

[DanAS]

Thanks for taking a 'stab' at it. I think much of the rhetoric that gets...emotional (for lack of a better term) comes from that conflict that exists between those who have sincere beliefs that this is a violation of the tenets of their religion and others who may use a 'blanket label' (again, for lack of a better term) to describe others that believe differently on this issue. Having said that, Priefer's comments fit the definition of 'homophobic' even if the tenets of his religion do not support homosexuality, so I think the descriptor in this case is accurate. So don't read into that as a justification for Priefer. He could have the most sincere belief on the planet that homosexuality is wrong, but when that belief is expressed in 'extermination' comments, it becomes a homophobic statement.

Indeed it is. It's kind of difficult to make a more homophobic statement than the one he made. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a coach were stupid enough to make a similar statement about a group with more political clout. While I doubt two games would do the trick under those circumstances, I truly hope we won't find out.

I somewhat feel alienated from Priefer and somewhat just feel sorry for him. I certainly don't know enough about him to form a strong opinion of him. In fact, what sucks is that the only thing I do know about him (other than that his special teams unit performed well) is this one truly disgusting comment -- not exactly the kind of PR this organization is looking for.

[Hunter Morrow]

"I'm sick of these creepy jew owners wrecking the culture of the league and nation. We should nuke 'em."

Yeah. Like he'd get a 2 game suspension and sensitivity training for that.
He's lucky the Gay Mafia isn't that strong yet. Maybe Priefer can do an Ebony and Ivory Apology Tour when Tracy Morgan gets out of the hospital.

[DanAS]

"I'm sick of these creepy jew owners wrecking the culture of the league and nation. We should nuke 'em."

Yeah. Like he'd get a 2 game suspension and sensitivity training for that.
He's lucky the Gay Mafia isn't that strong yet.

Exactly.

But your hypothetical statement is unrealistic. These days, people don't just accuse my people of wrecking some league or some nation. We're responsible for ruining the world, right?

By the way, they also whipped that the ol' two game suspension for Ray Rice. Why bother?