Deadspin: I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards And A Bigot

[s0crates]

Comparing the reaction this has received to the reaction the DD thing received saddens me. There are still a lot of bigots in this country, and whether or not they are the majority, they certainly seem to be more vocal than their more humane counterparts.

[Zguy28]

Calling a bigot a bigot is bigoted?

Bigot:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Is it bigotry if you vehemently disagree, speak openly against, but don't prohibit something?

[PleaseBlitz]

Is it bigotry if you vehemently disagree, speak openly against, but don't prohibit something?

 

Yes.  Most people don't have the power to prohibit things.  Bigotry is about belief.  

[Zguy28]

Yes.  Most people don't have the power to prohibit things.  Bigotry is about belief.

then where do you draw the line? Why is it not bigotry to be intolerant of those you believe are bigots? Seems to be an infinite circle or ever advancing line.

[Springfield]

That's a bit of a stretch there Zguy.

If Kluwe's public statements were not in line with the team's values then they absolutely have the right to dump him. Just like in the case of Robertson, there is nothing that protects him from being fired if his public persona does not match team's views. It's why I think a lot of athletes need to keep away from social media and the like. Stay away from any political and decisive comments. Kluwe was looking to be involved in exactly that.

What is really disheartening to me is the lack of public outcry and media attention for this case since it's a fairly close analog of the Robertson case. I see no one on Facebook coming to Kluwe's defense. I see no left wing cable news networks crying "foul". Maybe it's the friends that I choose or the media that I'm surrounded by but it sure seems to me that no one cares about the gays.

[PleaseBlitz]

then where do you draw the line? Why is it not bigotry to be intolerant of those you believe are bigots? Seems to be an infinite circle or ever advancing line.

 

Well the problem with line-drawing is that your definition is way too vague.  Here's a better one:

 

Someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

 

 

So where I think a line can be drawn is hating someone based on their actual actions that have somehow negatively affected you (not bigotry) versus hating them the simple fact that they belong to some larger group (bigotry).  

 

In the Deadspin story, the coaches remarks that "the gays" should all be put on an island and then it should be nuked until it glows is an example of the latter.  

 

Also, its important to point out that there is a list of groups that bigotry relates to (races, ethnicities, the disabled, etc).  Outside of those and probably a few others that the definition missed, hating a group for being a group is A-OK.  For instance Eagles fans.

[Die Hard]

I understand that he not of much value and a punter, but the thing that gets me is the coach making the homophobic comments.

Football culture is full of meatheads.

 

Dude, it`s not just football culture. It`s prevalent in virtually every lockerroom in every male sports team. Amateur and pro. Probably from high school up.

[PokerPacker]

Dude, it`s not just football culture. It`s prevalent in virtually every lockerroom in every male sports team. Amateur and pro. Probably from high school up.

I dunno about that. When I was playing college hockey, I was once accused of being too straight in the lockerroom. Maybe it's just a changing of the times with a younger generation.

[Zguy28]

Well the problem with line-drawing is that your definition is way too vague. Here's a better one:

Someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

So where I think a line can be drawn is hating someone based on their actual actions that have somehow negatively affected you (not bigotry) versus hating them the simple fact that they belong to some larger group (bigotry).

In the Deadspin story, the coaches remarks that "the gays" should all be put on an island and then it should be nuked until it glows is an example of the latter.

Also, its important to point out that there is a list of groups that bigotry relates to (races, ethnicities, the disabled, etc). Outside of those and probably a few others that the definition missed, hating a group for being a group is A-OK. For instance Eagles fans.

sorry, I just used the common definition from dictionary.com.

Do you think folks like Mr. Kluwe view Evangelical Christians, especially those who historically have tried to ban same-sex marriages, with "fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance"?

That's a bit of a stretch there Zguy.

If Kluwe's public statements were not in line with the team's values then they absolutely have the right to dump him. Just like in the case of Robertson, there is nothing that protects him from being fired if his public persona does not match team's views. It's why I think a lot of athletes need to keep away from social media and the like. Stay away from any political and decisive comments. Kluwe was looking to be involved in exactly that.

What is really disheartening to me is the lack of public outcry and media attention for this case since it's a fairly close analog of the Robertson case. I see no one on Facebook coming to Kluwe's defense. I see no left wing cable news networks crying "foul". Maybe it's the friends that I choose or the media that I'm surrounded by but it sure seems to me that no one cares about the gays.

i guess my point is this, what justifies (maybe better word is qualifies?) intolerance not being called bigotry?

I'm sure Larry's outcry machine would be in full gear had the Vikings openly stated they cut him for his activism. But unlike A&E, they didn't or at least it hasn't been proven they did.

[s0crates]

then where do you draw the line? Why is it not bigotry to be intolerant of those you believe are bigots? Seems to be an infinite circle or ever advancing line.

You are on to something here. Tolerance cannot be a universal value, otherwise we have to tolerate intolerance, which is an outright contradiction. This is a version of the standard refutation of universal ethical relativism. We have to draw the line somewhere. Personally, I'm inclined to draw the line at the sort of bigotry you seem inclined to defend . . .

[Springfield]

i guess my point is this, what justifies (maybe better word is qualifies?) intolerance not being called bigotry?

I'm sure Larry's outcry machine would be in full gear had the Vikings openly stated they cut him for his activism. But unlike A&E, they didn't or at least it hasn't been proven they did.

I guess it's generally accepted that if you hate gays you are a bigot. You hate them because they are dudes that have sex with dudes. There is a specific reason. Also, I'll add to that one's belief in the Bible doesn't make them any less of a bigot. People are just using the Bible to hid behind their disdain of guys who like to stick their wieners in other guys bad spots. They are still bigots.

Now if you hate people that hate a group of people it gets a little convoluted. That isn't bigotry to me. They you get into people who hate the people, that hate the people to hate gays. That's not bigotry.

As to your last point, you're probably right. A&E came out and said they suspended Robertson because of what he said. The Vikings just cut Kluwe, Kluwe is the one making claims that they did it because of his views.

Taking that line of thinking a bit further, if A&E just suspended Robertson for irreconcilable differences after his interview would there have been and outcry? Just something to think on.

[PleaseBlitz]

sorry, I just used the common definition from dictionary.com.

Do you think folks like Mr. Kluwe view Evangelical Christians, especially those who historically have tried to ban same-sex marriages, with "fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance"?

i guess my point is this, what justifies (maybe better word is qualifies?) intolerance not being called bigotry?

 

 

Yes, but for their actual actions attempting to deny homosexuals a basic civil right (not bigotry) rather than just based on preconceived prejudices against ALL evangelical Christians generally, just for being evangelicals (which would be). 

[Larry]

I'm sure Larry's outcry machine would be in full gear had the Vikings openly stated they cut him for his activism. But unlike A&E, they didn't or at least it hasn't been proven they did.

Perhaps you should confine yourself to stating your positions and opinions, instead of trying to invent positions for others.

Larry's position as to the actual events described, here?

IF the allegations are true, then I think the guy has a case that the Vikings violated sexual harassment laws. (Just as guilty as they would have been, if they'd treated a woman the same way.) IMO, the workplace harassment at least MIGHT be illegal.

IMO, if they'd fired him for speaking out about gay rights?

I've pointed out, in the Duck thread, that, while I think that the position of "any employer can fire any employee for anything they want, even if it was on his own time", IMO, gives too much power to employers. I believe that MOST employers should not have the authority to fire employees for legal activities performed on their own time, especially in terms of the exercise of civil rights activities like political activism.

BUT, I also pointed out that there are some jobs, where I think the employer DOES have the right to demand that employees at least keep their personal opinions out of the public view. That employees who, because of their job, serve as icons, representing the company, really give up that right when they accept that job.

I believe that being the star of a TV show falls in that category. I'm not certain that being a player on an NFL team also belongs in that category. I think it's at least closer to the line. but I think it's still on the "you're obligated to keep your opinions, well, you don't have to keep them to yourself, but you do have to keep them out of the papers" category.

In short, while I think that MOST jobs, it shouldn't be legal to fire an employee for being gay (or not liking gays, or being in the NRA, or marching for the legalization of marijuana, or any similar activity), I agree that MAYBE being an NFL player might be one of the exceptions.

[Zguy28]

I guess it's generally accepted that if you hate gays you are a bigot. You hate them because they are dudes that have sex with dudes. There is a specific reason. Also, I'll add to that one's belief in the Bible doesn't make them any less of a bigot. People are just using the Bible to hid behind their disdain of guys who like to stick their wieners in other guys bad spots. They are still bigots.

How judgmental and insulting, and crude too. You are a testament to ignorance. Some may use the bible as a justification for hatred that already exists, but that is not a majority of evangelicals. And I know a lot of them. When you believe something is the very revealed word of God, and that God has the right to define right and wrong, then it's not hiding, it's the truth. Thanks for your time.

Perhaps you should confine yourself to stating your positions and opinions, instead of trying to invent positions for others.Larry's position as to the actual events described, here?

i wasn't stating your position. I was referencin your post about how the outrage is channeled and the minions mobilized so quickly. That's all.

[Springfield]

How judgmental and insulting, and crude too. You are a testament to ignorance. Some may use the bible as a justification for hatred that already exists, but that is not a majority of evangelicals. And I know a lot of them. When you believe something is the very revealed word of God, and that God has the right to define right and wrong, then it's not hiding, it's the truth. Thanks for your time.

Disagree and I don't think that we will get much past that so I'll leave that as my last post as it pertains to religion and the bigotry against gays.

Have a good one.

[No Excuses]

How judgmental and insulting, and crude too. You are a testament to ignorance. Some may use the bible as a justification for hatred that already exists, but that is not a majority of evangelicals. And I know a lot of them. When you believe something is the very revealed word of God, and that God has the right to define right and wrong, then it's not hiding, it's the truth. Thanks for your time.

i wasn't stating your position. I was referencin your post about how the outrage is channeled and the minions mobilized so quickly. That's all.

 

People wouldn't have a problem with your position if didn't come with forced legislation, persecution and openly public intolerance. Specifically, a very targeted campaign against homosexuals when these same religion backed groups are nearly not as motivated to go after other "sins".

 

You wouldn't be happy if one day Hindu's started forcing legislation to ban beef or if Muslim's wanted all women to put on Hijabs. But you are ok with your religious views being shoved down millions of others who don't share them. But you already know this and simply don't care like millions of social conservatives because you form the religious majority and have decided that your version of "truth" should be applied to others who simply don't care and want to live their own lives.

[Larry]

i wasn't stating your position. I was referencin your post about how the outrage is channeled and the minions mobilized so quickly. That's all.

Apologies. I read your post as predicting that I, personally, would be outraged.

Now that I think you've corrected my misunderstanding, I think you may have raised an interesting point, here. How come there doesn't seem to be as much outrage from the pro-gay lobby, over this firing, as there was about Duck Dude's comments?

I have noted that I think part of the outrage against Duck Dude's comments, was because his comments lumped homosexuality in with bestiality.

Frankly, equating homosexuality with bestiality (and child molesting) has been a standard part of the well-coached debating playbook of the people who've been pushing legislated discrimination against gays, for the last few decades.

 

Now, I don't think Duck Dude actually equated the two.  Rather, he provided a list of sins, and his list included those two activities, along with several much more "minor sins", if you will.  IMO, at least looking at a transcript of that part of his answer, I don't think he actually was saying that these two things were sins of equal magnitude, let alone trying to make them fully equal. 

 

That's one of the reasons why I consider the reaction against his comments to be excessive.  IMO, while his comments may have

resembled

equating homosexuality with bestiality, I don't think he actually did so. 

 

I also think that A&E's firing of him was an excessive reaction, because I don't think his comments actually hurt their brand.  More like reinforced the stereotype, which I think is what they're really selling, anyway.

 

 

But, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the "gay community" has, after more than a decade of this attack being used, developed a real sore spot towards that particular argument.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if his comment was close enough to that argument, (which they've all heard hundreds of times), that it triggered a bigger reaction. 

 

To use an analogy, it wouldn't surprise me, if somebody were to make a statement about blacks, fried chicken, and watermelon, which technically wasn't insulting, if you still got a big reaction from a lot of people, anyway. 

 

It also wouldn't surprise me if Duck Dude's comments didn't get a whole lot more coverage, outside of gay activist groups like GLAAD, because he simply makes such a photogenic icon for the whole stereotype of the ignorant hick gay hater. 

[Zguy28]

Apologies. I read your post as predicting that I, personally, would be outraged.Now that I think you've corrected my misunderstanding,

No apologies. I worded it pretty poorly.

[Zguy28]

People wouldn't have a problem with your position if didn't come with forced legislation, persecution and openly public intolerance. Specifically, a very targeted campaign against homosexuals when these same religion backed groups are nearly not as motivated to go after other "sins".

squeaky wheel gets the grease. i don't see many adulterers or other types of sins having advocacy groups or campaigning.

You wouldn't be happy if one day Hindu's started forcing legislation to ban beef or if Muslim's wanted all women to put on Hijabs. But you are ok with your religious views being shoved down millions of others who don't share them. But you already know this and simply don't care like millions of social conservatives because you form the religious majority and have decided that your version of "truth" should be applied to others who simply don't care and want to live their own lives.

The beauty of the Internet forum is you can cast judgments anonymously on groups of people without knowing them and without consequence. I don't believe in legislating against immorality such as this. Let them have their union. I don't really care about that. But keep thinking you know me and others that you have no idea about.

by the way, are you gay?

[No Excuses]

squeaky wheel gets the grease. i don't see many adulterers or other types of sins having advocacy groups or campaigning.

 

 

Are adulterers having their rights stripped away by religious groups influencing politicians the way gays are? Ridiculous argument.

 

 

 

The beauty of the Internet forum is you can cast judgments anonymously on groups of people without knowing them and without consequence. I don't believe in legislating against immorality such as this. Let them have their union. I don't really care about that. But keep thinking you know me and others that you have no idea about.

by the way, are you gay? 

 

Unions or marriage? Wording can be funny and deceiving.

 

I have no idea about? The church is the biggest impediment to a minority having equal rights in this country.  No I am not gay, but I have a huge problem with religious groups promoting discrimination through legislation.

[Zguy28]

Are adulterers having their rights stripped away by religious groups influencing politicians the way gays are? Ridiculous argument.

Stripped away? That implies that some previous right was taken away. Did homosexuals once have the right to marry in our nation?

 

Unions or marriage? Wording can be funny and deceiving.

 

I have no idea about? The church is the biggest impediment to a minority having equal rights in this country.  No I am not gay, but I have a huge problem with religious groups promoting discrimination through legislation.

Lots of people feel exactly as you do, EXACTLY, but its in regard to groups trying to fundamentally redefine something they hold sacred like marriage.

[No Excuses]

Hah, your viewpoints (and arguments) are exactly what I had assumed they would be. If you twist your mind enough like a pretzel, you can eventually draw equivalency between practically anything. I really don't see a point in continuing. 

[Larry]

deleted post.

Rehashing the debate on gay marriage, IMO, is a distraction from the thread. And so, I'm going to take the incredibly long-winded post I wrote on the subject, and take it PM.

To hopefully preserve "the sanctity of the thread".

[LadySkinsFan]

You all do know that heterosexuals have anal sex, right?  Man to woman and woman to man.  It just doesn't get talked about that much.  In some cases, it's a birth control method (no vaginal sex, no pregnancy), in other cases it's all about pleasure.

 

And you all do know that lesbian sex is a big turn on for men and not mentioned very often in the text that abhors gay sex.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Time is on same sex marriage side, as was the Loving v. Virginia decision that outlawed laws prohibiting mixed race marriage, particularly black/white unions.

 

And for the record, I'm opposed to marriage at all as an outdated property contract that originally controlled patriarchal ownership of women, children, land, and other property.  It's not much different now, except some men still think that's what marriage means.  Same sex marriage legality or not, I'll never marry.

 

As to Cluwe and his story, he did go to the Vikings' legal department and had permission to pursue his interests, albeit on a personal level and not as part of the Vikings.  It's not his fault that the media joined his name and interests to Vikings.

 

I was once employed by a company that had a non-discrimination clause that included sexual orientation.  I also once worked with a woman who, for some unknown reason but I'll guess bigotry, who tried to torch me professionally and when that didn't work, tried to torch me personally by claiming that I sexually harassed her.  Nothing was further from the truth, at the time I was coupled with a woman and was very happy with that situation.  Luckily I had documented her attempts to torch me professionally (thank goodness for work diaries).  I was also on our company's diversity committee.  We had to meet with our manager and the HR head.  I printed out my work diary and gave copies to both managers prior to the meeting.  During the meeting, she said she couldn't work with me because of my sexual orientation and that it was against her beliefs.  Too bad for her, she was violating the non-discrimination clause.  I don't know what was said to her individually, but shortly thereafter she found another position in the company.

 

Bigotry is indeed alive and well in the workplace.  Now, as a consultant, I don't disclose anything about my private life because it's no one's business and I don't want my income affected by bigotry.  I work with lots of ex-military and lots of Bible believers and hear a lot of bigotry directed toward women, non-whites, and homosexuals.  If it gets to the point where I can't tolerate it anymore, I work out my contract and am conveniently busy the next time they call, or if it's horrific, I leave the assignment.  I've been in meetings where an HR person is sitting right there and someone made a slur against blacks and nothing was done.  Toxic environment to say the least.

 

What Cluwe's coach allegedly said was certainly bigoted and best left unsaid, especially since he was the one to bring the subject up in the meetings.  Some managers think they have to right to dictate how one lives one's private life and not just in the workplace.  Those are bad managers, and in this case, ST coach and it may extend to the other coaches.  Especially since one of the owners expressed support for same sex marriage, the behavior of the ST coach and the other coaches is indeed bigotry and maybe even cowardly for not doing the right thing.

 

Professionals should act like professionals in the workplace and that includes everyone.

[twa]

 

 

You can't have it both ways 

 

Sure ya can, it's the B in LGBT...probably the T as well