Chris Kluwe: "Fired By Two Cowards And A Bigot"

[IceCap]

It's not deflection, it's calling people to account when they practice selective outrage.

An other problem I have with this. You calling people who have spoken out against Robertson's comments and Priefer's alleged comments as practicing "selective outrage."

People are outraged for entirely justifiable reasons. Calling it "selective" belittles the very real emotions those comments stir.

[BlueSky]

Oh Jesus Christ, stop with the politics. What the living hell does Joe Biden and Sarah Palin have to do with Chris Kluwe and the Minnesota Vikings? Some of you guys can't be left alone for 5 minutes when anything even remotely scraping the farthest reaches of politics is brought up. Before you know it a 3 or 4 page thread goes to 20, full of bloated, idiotic bickering about red vs. blue. Stahp.

/meta mod

If you had read the posts in context, you wouldn't have to ask.

With that said, I can understand how my "selective outrage" arc could be seen by some as threadjacking. It really wasn't my intent. I gave my take early on and should have left it at that.

Carry on.

[Gothamite]

It's not deflection, it's calling people to account when they practice selective outrage.

An other problem I have with this. You calling people who have spoken out against Robertson's comments and Priefer's alleged comments as practicing "selective outrage."

People are outraged for entirely justifiable reasons. Calling it "selective" belittles the very real emotions those comments stir.

But that's so obviously the point.

[BlueSky]

It's not deflection, it's calling people to account when they practice selective outrage.

An other problem I have with this. You calling people who have spoken out against Robertson's comments and Priefer's alleged comments as practicing "selective outrage."

People are outraged for entirely justifiable reasons. Calling it "selective" belittles the very real emotions those comments stir.

But that's so obviously the point.

Shame on you. You should know better.

Selective outrage means people who are only offended by outrageous behavior or comments by people who don't share their views. Anyone who is ticked off about idiocy regardless of the source has nothing to answer for. In fact, my hat is off to them for being admirably objective. My point in all of this was how many here are so very offended by some things but let others go because they come from people they happen to agree with.

I've explained it enough times. If you don't get it or just insist on assigning false motives to me because you don't like the point, too bad, can't help you.

[monkeypower]

[BlueSky]

Dibs on Spiderman.

And it's a discussion, not a fight. God knows Goth, Ice Cap and I have had enough of them.

[Gothamite]

Selective outrage means people who are only offended by outrageous behavior or comments by people who don't share their views.

You've demonstrated no such thing on this thread.

Oprah said nasty things about racists. That Duck person said nasty things about all gay people.

Your example wasn't "selective outrage" so much as it is "false equivalency".

[OnWis97]

I suppose all outrage is selective. For example, I am outraged at murderers but not at people who like to take naps on Saturday afternoons. I guess I have been selective.

Other than that, the idea that any of this is "selective outrage" implies that one is "wrong" to not recognize them as the same thing. Yet they are not the same thing. The notion may hold true if I was outraged at a white guy that hates blacks but not at a black guy who hates whites. That is more of a one-to-one comparison. But I am not selective if I am outraged at a white guy who hates blacks but not at a black guy who hates white racists.

[BlueSky]

Goth, come on...she said people who grew up in racist eras and/or areas "just need to die." Not all those people are racists. You're spinning her hateful words into something less just like Ice Cap was.

And OnWis...good grief. You know good and well I'm talking about the same BS that happens in Washington for example where one party - and they both do it - wags their finger at someone in the opposite party and ignores the same misdeed when it happens in their own party.

You guys just want to play games.

[IceCap]

No, not really. My outrage at Phil Robertson wasn't part of a game. I was, and still am, legitimately angery at what he said.

That's the problem with this whole thing. Someone says something offensive and you just can't recognize that it was terrible and let it be. You treat it as a game and try to find a "counter" so you can make a point about both sides being "wrong." You even dig up news stories from six years as part of the "game."

Why can't you just accept that Phil Robertson's remarks and Mike Priefer's alleged remarks hurt people without turning it into a game of "find the equally hurtful remark from a liberal"?

[Gothamite]

Especially since he hasn't been able to do anything of the sort.

But back to this case, Klewe has hired an attorney to represent him in the investigation: http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2014/01/06/fomer-viking-chris-kluwe-hires-prominent-local-attorney/4344291/

[infrared41]

Let's talk about some sickening comments that aren't in doubt: Oprah's surprisingly candid flash of hate. Be sure to watch the clip because the way she says it is what's disturbing. In print, her words, while hateful, could be taken as a matter-of-fact statement. Her tone and body language make clear though that she's really wishing death on people. Interesting too that she used no qualifiers. For example, many people my age and most who are older are among those who were "marinated." But it's possible for people to see how wrong the prevailing norms are and reject them. Does Oprah give those people a reprieve or is she in the "kill 'em all and let God sort ''em out" camp?

So...where's the outrage?

Just my 2 cents, but I don't think she meant they need to die today. I'm guessing what she meant was simply that the people who still hold racist views need to die....at their natural time...before racism will finally be erased.

And no, I'm not an Oprah fan nor do I share her views...unless she's become an objectivist libertarian and I didn't hear about it.

[sc49erfan15]

Let's talk about some sickening comments that aren't in doubt: Oprah's surprisingly candid flash of hate. Be sure to watch the clip because the way she says it is what's disturbing. In print, her words, while hateful, could be taken as a matter-of-fact statement. Her tone and body language make clear though that she's really wishing death on people. Interesting too that she used no qualifiers. For example, many people my age and most who are older are among those who were "marinated." But it's possible for people to see how wrong the prevailing norms are and reject them. Does Oprah give those people a reprieve or is she in the "kill 'em all and let God sort ''em out" camp?

So...where's the outrage?

Just my 2 cents, but I don't think she meant they need to die today. I'm guessing what she meant was simply that the people who still hold racist views need to die....at their natural time...before racism will finally be erased.

And no, I'm not an Oprah fan.

That's exactly how I took it.

[Cosmic]

I don't think Oprah was talking about killing everyone from those generations. When she was talking about "marinating", I think she was talking specifically about the racists. If you have someone who is 50, 60, 70 (unfortunately, probably even 30) years old and still thinks black people are monkeys and blah blah, they're just not going to change. I think everyone pretty much agrees with that. Logically then, racism will still be around as long as they're around. That's what I took it as. I think this is one of those controversies where someone says something true, but it's something that nobody wants to hear... like the Bill Cosby "controversies" whenever he says black men need to raise their children and get a high school education.

If Oprah was talking about getting rid of everyone who "marinated" in that racist culture, then that means people like her, too. That's something entirely different:

[BlueSky]

@ 'red...did you watch the clip? You're a radio guy, right? So you have more than the average bear's appreciation for how inflection and tone can shape the meaning of words that may look innocuous on paper. In the interview, Oprah says "...and they just need to die" with what struck me (and others) as conviction and malice. I think she does a lot of good work and that's why this - what looked for all the world like a rare unguarded flash of real hate - surprised me. Whoever she's talking about, she sounds like she wants them to die. I'm not saying I've never wished death on anyone - that clown that shot up the theater in Aurora comes to mind - but from her it was a bit of a shock.

All that is beside the point because while people can (and obviously will) argue the validity of examples till doomsday, the fact is that many if not most people are hypocrites. They will overlook outrageous behavior (at least to a point) if it comes from like-minded people while they rail against the same type of behavior from people who share their views.

That's all I was trying to say. I only brought it up because it's a gear-grinder to see all the hand-wringing and finger-wagging and indignance that goes on towards conservatives - and much of it is justified - while people like Oprah and Biden and whoever else just get a free pass for being hateful, stupid, or serial sexual harassers.

Don't know how much more clearly I can explain it.

[CS85]

[Cosmic]

All that is beside the point because while people can (and obviously will) argue the validity of examples till doomsday, the fact is that many if not most people are hypocrites. They will overlook outrageous behavior (at least to a point) if it comes from like-minded people while they rail against the same type of behavior from people who share their views.

That's all I was trying to say. I only brought it up because it's a gear-grinder to see all the hand-wringing and finger-wagging and indignance that goes on towards conservatives - and much of it is justified - while people like Oprah and Biden and whoever else just get a free pass for being hateful, stupid, or serial sexual harassers.

Don't know how much more clearly I can explain it.

...and we're more likely to take offense when we see someone attacked who shares our views, no?

[BlueSky]

@CS85, thanks for your illuminating contribution. Always a pleasure.

[Cosmic]

@CS85, thanks for your illuminating contribution. Always a pleasure.

I'll take anything to keep warm today... even a dumpster fire.

[CS85]

@CS85, thanks for your illuminating contribution. Always a pleasure.

If I could go back in time and not create this thread I would. I absolutely repudiate political discourse of any nature on message boards, no matter how civil.