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

[OnWis97]

Hypothetically speaking (jury is still out in this case), what consequences could/should there be in a situation like this if it turns out the accuser/"victim" is lying?

Libel laws pretty much take care of that. No worries there.

Right now, the "burden of proof" (in the court of public opinion and with the NFL/Team) is with Kluwe. But when it comes to libel, it would be on Priefer. My guess is five years from now we won't know much more than we know now.

[Gothamite]

You're right about the burden, but the dependent investigation should go a long way towards establishing the facts, which will lighten that burden. I'm hopeful we'll know something pretty definitively well before then.

[BlueSky]

I was speaking generally, not about Kluwe's case (thought that was clear when I said hypothetically and that the jury is still out in this particular instance).

What's troublesome in such cases is that even if there's nothing factual in an accusation, the stink follows people around, especially if they happen to be public figures. A lot of people who hear the initial accusation may never know the outcome or may always wonder whether the accused just got away with something. Remember those dirty bastards on the Duke lacrosse team who raped that woman?

I hope you read that last sentence and thought, "No, they were cleared and it turned out the woman was a nut case who would later murder her boyfriend!" Because that's the truth.

Say me and Goth go out for a beer (I know, but give me some latitude here). I get on the board after and either lie or twist his words into something they weren't. "Wow, I was really shocked when Goth said (insert socially unacceptable utterance)." He denies it and tries to explain himself and so on and that probably works for anyone who knows him personally. But for those who don't, they'll always have that unpleasantness associated with his name ("hey, where there's smoke, there's fire!"). It's completely unfair.

What's worse is that there are smear artists out there for whom this is a standard tactic in their everyday lives.

That's why I asked what consequences there could/should be if people make false accusations. Sure, there are libel suits blah blah and maybe that's all the recourse there is. Just doesn't seem right and the answers here seemed a little dry. Any of you ever been on the wrong end of this kind of deal?

[The_Admiral]

Well, I don't think he's a smear artist. I think he's a relentless self-promoter who has presented his own personal firing as a bigger injustice to gay rights than actual hate speech or acts, but he can't be so stupid or unhinged as to make such things up completely.

[infrared41]

Remember those dirty bastards on the Duke lacrosse team who raped that woman?

I hope you read that last sentence and thought, "No, they were cleared and it turned out the woman was a nut case who would later murder her boyfriend!" Because that's the truth.

That's exactly what I thought. But...most of us around here follow sports pretty closely so we know the actual outcome of that particular case. My guess is there are plenty of people like Mary Jane Soccermom and John Q. Immaculatelawn who hear Duke lacrosse and think "those awful bastards who raped that woman."

[OnWis97]

I was speaking generally, not about Kluwe's case (thought that was clear when I said hypothetically and that the jury is still out in this particular instance).

What's troublesome in such cases is that even if there's nothing factual in an accusation, the stink follows people around, especially if they happen to be public figures. A lot of people who hear the initial accusation may never know the outcome or may always wonder whether the accused just got away with something. Remember those dirty bastards on the Duke lacrosse team who raped that woman?

I hope you read that last sentence and thought, "No, they were cleared and it turned out the woman was a nut case who would later murder her boyfriend!" Because that's the truth.

Say me and Goth go out for a beer (I know, but give me some latitude here). I get on the board after and either lie or twist his words into something they weren't. "Wow, I was really shocked when Goth said (insert socially unacceptable utterance)." He denies it and tries to explain himself and so on and that probably works for anyone who knows him personally. But for those who don't, they'll always have that unpleasantness associated with his name ("hey, where there's smoke, there's fire!"). It's completely unfair.

What's worse is that there are smear artists out there for whom this is a standard tactic in their everyday lives.

That's why I asked what consequences there could/should be if people make false accusations. Sure, there are libel suits blah blah and maybe that's all the recourse there is. Just doesn't seem right and the answers here seemed a little dry. Any of you ever been on the wrong end of this kind of deal?

In this case I am on board with you for the most part and the hypothetical of "is Chris Kluwe lying" is appropriate.

No question; people accused of stuff never totally shake the "stink" even if they are pretty much found to be not guilty of the act.

If Kluwe made this up, then yeah, Priefer will be seen in a bad light through absolutely no fault of his own and I'd argue that this would be a greater injustice than keeping him on after saying these things.

I tend to doubt that Priefer is a guy who has never had anything to say about the whole "gay" issue but we really don't know at this point. So your hypothetical is appropriate (as is the hypothetical that Priefer basically wanted to cut this guy for standing up for gay rights).

[The_Admiral]

Remember this? I'm sure the owners do. (Though, again, he's absolutely right.)

NAILED IT

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/66428704/

Chris Kluwe isn't a "gay marriage" problem; he's a labor problem.

. . .

. Because while the NFL already abhors the political, the social, the uncomfortable -- anything, really, that is non-commercial -- what it really hates talking about is labor. The people who own the NFL hate labor outside the game just as much.

[Gothamite]

That's why I asked what consequences there could/should be if people make false accusations. Sure, there are libel suits blah blah and maybe that's all the recourse there is. Just doesn't seem right and the answers here seemed a little dry.

I don't know what kind of answer you'd be looking for, then. Part of choosing to be a public figure is the risk that people will say untrue things about you. Goes with the territory.

And I'd be happy to risk having a beer with you - I'll even buy the first pint.

[illwauk]

What's troublesome in such cases is that even if there's nothing factual in an accusation, the stink follows people around, especially if they happen to be public figures. A lot of people who hear the initial accusation may never know the outcome or may always wonder whether the accused just got away with something. Remember those dirty bastards on the Duke lacrosse team who raped that woman?

Yes, I'm sure that a bunch of white frat boys at an "old money" southern college who purposely sought out black strippers are complete angels who did absolutely nothing to deserve having their image tainted.

Probably not the best example to make your point.

[The_Admiral]

Actually, Duke is pretty nouveau-riche.

[BlueSky]

What's troublesome in such cases is that even if there's nothing factual in an accusation, the stink follows people around, especially if they happen to be public figures. A lot of people who hear the initial accusation may never know the outcome or may always wonder whether the accused just got away with something. Remember those dirty bastards on the Duke lacrosse team who raped that woman?

Yes, I'm sure that a bunch of white frat boys at an "old money" southern college who purposely sought out black strippers are complete angels who did absolutely nothing to deserve having their image tainted.

Probably not the best example to make your point.

I really can't believe you said that but thanks for illustrating just about every point I've tried to make in this thread.

[illwauk]

What's troublesome in such cases is that even if there's nothing factual in an accusation, the stink follows people around, especially if they happen to be public figures. A lot of people who hear the initial accusation may never know the outcome or may always wonder whether the accused just got away with something. Remember those dirty bastards on the Duke lacrosse team who raped that woman?

Yes, I'm sure that a bunch of white frat boys at an "old money" southern college who purposely sought out black strippers are complete angels who did absolutely nothing to deserve having their image tainted.

Probably not the best example to make your point.

I really can't believe you said that but thanks for illustrating just about every point I've tried to make in this thread.

All I've illustrated is (as others have pointed out and alluded to in this thread) your knee-jerk contrarianism whenever someone whose politics you feel aligned with says something ignorant or disgusting.

Was the false rape accusation appalling? Absolutely. But to tell the story as if these were just innocent kids who did nothing to deserve such a stigma is just plain dishonest. They may not have raped anyone (that we know of), but they brought women over to their house for the purpose of gawking at and shouting crude things at them. I get that this is a male-dominated forum where misogyny runs rampant, but you hardly have to be a raging feminist to see that these guys are in the situation they're in because they acted like sexist (and probably racist) pigs.

And if you think that's unfair... well... that's what women who've been raped have to go through whenever they report it (see what I did there?).

[rams80]

Remember those dirty bastards on the Duke lacrosse team who raped that woman?

I hope you read that last sentence and thought, "No, they were cleared and it turned out the woman was a nut case who would later murder her boyfriend!" Because that's the truth.

That's exactly what I thought. But...most of us around here follow sports pretty closely so we know the actual outcome of that particular case. My guess is there are plenty of people like Mary Jane Soccermom and John Q. Immaculatelawn who hear Duke lacrosse and think "those awful bastards who raped that woman."

And yes, I suspect they are suffering a little for this professionally (maybe more personally, although depending on their social circles that is also doubtful), although I doubt it is that much-they should have enough connections to land some sort of business job and they likely have enough sense not to bring it up in any work situation. I don't feel too much sympathy for them because of the reasons that illwauk illuminated. Sometimes learning experiences have lifetime consequences, especially if you're an adult.

[infrared41]

Damn. This is a tough crowd.

[DEAD!]

Damn. This is a tough crowd.

*just enters the conversation* What did I miss?

[The_Admiral]

I want to revisit my post from earlier:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/66428704/

Chris Kluwe isn't a "gay marriage" problem; he's a labor problem.

. . .

. Because while the NFL already abhors the political, the social, the uncomfortable -- anything, really, that is non-commercial -- what it really hates talking about is labor. The people who own the NFL hate labor outside the game just as much.

Is it me, or do fans of the NFL hate its labor as much as the management does? I mean, when the NHL was locked out, you had some people who grumbled about the players wanting too much, but for the most part, intelligent fans supported the players, and once everything got back going, fans generally like the people who play the game. NBA, you'd have been hard-pressed to find anyone siding with Stern, or at least anyone who doesn't own the Milwaukee Bucks, and of course in times of labor peace it's all about the players.

But with the NFL, whether it's before, during, or after a labor stoppage, there always seems to be a distinct sense of contempt for the players: that their CTE problems are theirs and theirs alone, that they should always just Shut Up And Play, that they can/will/should be replaced for the slightest decline or dissent. I think I really started easing out of NFL fandom during their lockout when I would ask people why, if you think so little of the people playing this terrible game for your amusement, do you even watch them play the game, and never get a worthy response. It was kind of my first real clear realization that the NFL had become something too big for its own good. If these aren't people, or at least not people I should see as people, then what am I watching? Now, I'm not asking that people send Christmas cards to their second-string offensive linemen here, but the way these guys are treated like these mere components that are to be resented and hated for doing anything other than what they're expected to do is just very offputting vis-a-vis the other team sports where players aren't quite so fungible. It's just a very industrial-revolution approach to human beings. And then there's fantasy. Enough said. And I'll admit that I just plain don't like Chris Kluwe, because I deal with enough profane and hyperliterate message board people in my life and I already am a profane and hyperliterate message board person, and so I don't need a Minnesota Vikings punter to add to the pile, but on general principle I don't begrudge football players their rights to be something other than human Xs and Os who kill themselves to sell beer and trucks.

Sorry, I just think if we're going to go off topic, better it be like this than about the goddamn duck-call people again.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Generations of union busting. The notion the economy is a zero-sum game. Deference to authority.

I don't think the sentiment of "my lot sucks so yours should too" is limited to sports.

EDIT: I also think you're wrong about people supporting NBA players over David Stern. I don't think there are any more less-liked athletes than NBA players, as a rule.

[The_Admiral]

Maybe by people who aren't fans of the NBA. The NCAA dead-enders hate NBA players, sure. But I don't think NBA fans object to the entirety of the workforce. Sure, there are going to be players you don't like, and LeBron James transcending that, but among people who actually like the NBA, I don't think people sit around wishing all these guys would shut up or go away so someone else can do their jobs more to the TV viewership's liking. But I could be wrong; I'm kinda peacing out on the NBA, too.

[BBTV]

I don't know much about the NBA, but I feel like their ridiculous CBAs have kinda dehumanized players. It feels like on most teams you don't see 5 guys running around on the court, you see an exception, 2 expiring contracts, some big turd like Sam Dalembert making 20M/year pretty much just because that's what the CBA says he makes, and some guy acquired in a trade only for salary cap reasons.

[Gothamite]

Possibly. But I think football is a unique situation, since helmets distance most of the fans from the players. With a few exceptions for the marquee quarterbacks, I think the average fan wouldn't recognize most of his team's players once they changed out of the uniform.

Perhaps that contributes to a general lack of caring about football players. We've already seen that most fans don't care that the sport is slowly killing too many of the players: "they knew what they were getting in to", "that's what they get paid for" and the like.