Off-The-Field IssuesOpinion

Chris Kluwe’s Latest Cause: “Blind Fanaticism”

In case you didn’t notice, the Minnesota Vikings and ex-punter Chris Kluwe are engaged in an ugly public relations battle that will soon evolve to an even uglier legal battle. Kluwe threw the first punch with his hefty accusations published at Deadspin back in January.

It took a while, but the Vikings organization has circled the wagons, and now thrown a few jabs back at Kluwe. Their summary of the investigation findings was released last night and then Chris Kluwe proceeded to, quite frankly, punch himself in the face on Twitter a few times last night.

The Vikings still contend that Chris Kluwe was not fired from his job for his activism, but rather released from his contract for football reasons, and I believe them (always have thought that, if you’ve been here for a while). Special teams coordinator Mike Priefer has also finally stopped lying and apologized for making inappropriate comments and the Vikings are reprimanding him with a suspension. Rick Spielman and Leslie Frazier seem to be non-issues, essentially, despite the title of Kluwe’s initial article.

In many cases like this there are never any clear winners, just losers, outside of the legal team being paid to play prevent defense within the confines of the judicial system. This is a high profile case, however, so you can probably put “media outlets” right up there with the lawyers when it comes to people that stand to benefit from this mess.

Now comes the mud, however.

In an obvious attempt to attack Kluwe’s character the Vikings have included in their release a tidbit that turned into a social media bombshell. They say that Kluwe made light of the Penn State molestation situation in a lewd and offensive manner, and he admits that he did.

He also attempted to threaten the organization by claiming to have knowledge of a situation involving two well-known Vikings players being caught in a compromising situation with an underage girl. That admission backfired a bit, as people immediately wondered why Kluwe has again sat on his hands and done nothing with this information about his former employers.

This morning, before leaving for a long Saturday (yes, Saturday, dang it) of work at my real job, I read a number of articles from fine writers questioning Kluwe’s intent.  Some were more harsh than others.

One of those articles came from Gregg Doyel at CBS Sports, and this evening Kluwe felt compelled to respond to Mr. Doyel, who called Kluwe out as being disgusting and hypocritical. You can read the whole thing here, but I want to focus on something Kluwe has said a few times over the past 24 hours, and said it again in his response to Doyel.

If it comes to speaking truth to power, standing up to blind fanaticism, that’s what I’m going to do.

This is the type of well-planned rhetoric that I have grown accustomed to in all things Kluwe. The guy is a wordsmith and a talented one. Still, I’m calling bulls*** on this one, and his other versions of the same sentiment, and feel like it is an attack on myself and many other Vikings fans.

I used to think this case that Kluwe had against Priefer and the Vikings was bigger than football. That is what was annoying about it as a hack football blogger, to be honest, because it wasn’t an X’s and O’s type of storyline, but it was important enough that it couldn’t be ignored. Regardless of how your politics are oriented, social justice is something we can’t simply ignore in favor of a sporting event or else we all lose, plain and simple.

Still, Kluwe’s decision to bring this back down to the level of football fandom and attack those that have “sided” with his “opponents” smells of desperation and is an insult to a fanbase that once showed him plenty of love.

Having covered the Vikings for quite a while now I can tell you that a majority of fans do not blindly support the Vikings organization. I’ve seen them criticize the organization for plenty, and I’m not just talking about on the field productivity.

I’ve seen fans call for the Wilf family to be run out of town for their demand for public funds. I’ve seen fans point to the arrests up and down rosters of Vikings past and demand change. I’ve seen fans upset over the release of a player on Christmas, over the team’s support of a player that allegedly choked his girlfriend, and over the lewd conduct of the players on that boat.

I’ve seen fans declare their fandom to be finished over how the organization treated specific players, with Antoine Winfield being the most recent example that comes to mind.

Chris Kluwe needs to understand that fans, myself included, are individuals that are capable of deciding things for ourselves. Many, albeit not all, are even intelligent enough to make coherent and intelligent decisions (or assumptions, as he might call them) about a subject being presented. We are even able to put our excitement over Vikings football to the side in order to form our opinions, whether he believes it or not.

I’m not saying Kluwe isn’t on the other end of some unfair and uninformed venom, especially considering he chooses to be plugged into social media as a public figure, I’m sure he sees more than his fair share of it. Conversely, he and the equality movement also have blind followers that will defend and attack on cue without considering the opposing viewpoint.

However, some of his own assumptions are way off base, starting with the one where he thinks any Vikings fan that disagrees with his approach to these issues are simply blind followers of some colors on a jersey.

At the other end of a disagreement is not always a blind follower of a football team, or a religion, or a political platform. At the other end of those arguments are often someone who just flat out thinks he is wrong, or thinks he is partially wrong, or is maybe even still trying to sort this mess out in their mind and has their doubts.

What Mike Priefer did was wrong and that has been admitted. I’ve never agreed with Kluwe’s reasoning for why he thinks he was released, but I’ve never questioned his integrity, until last night’s Twitter rant. I still don’t think Kluwe was wronged when he was released, but now I’m wondering about his character as a person willing to harass a coach about their affiliation to an organization facing the worst kind of scandal and also his willingness to sit idle while the Vikings allegedly sweep their own scandal under the rug.

Mike Priefer needs to be accountable for what he did. Now, however, Chris Kluwe has some explaining to do. According to Kluwe’s Twitter account, we will have to wait until he’s in court to get that explanation, because that way it will be “more fun.”

Call it blind faith in a football team if you want to be that ignorant about it, but I’m starting to have some serious doubts about the punter who thinks he can do no wrong and his willingness to belittle the rest of us.

Out of fairness to Kluwe, I offered him a chance to respond to this article before I posted it, and here is what he had to say:

So you know, that reference was to Penn State, not to people who support the Vikings. That’s your assumption to make, not what I stated. My issue is with people who blindly support something no matter what evidence comes out (i.e. Penn State), and something you may want to consider is that the Vikings released a version of the report they carefully combed for what they wanted to present, not the entire thing. If you’re truly for informed conversation, the Vikings releasing the full report will allow us to have that. What they currently put out? Nothing more than the opening salvo from a company getting ready for a protracted legal battle.
Ask yourself this. In a 29 page summary of a 150 page report with 1600 pages of footnotes and sources, why were only 3 pages devoted to the actual subject of the report, and 26 devoted to the person who raised the complaint.
Just something to think about.
Show More

Adam Warwas

Adam Warwas (Founder) has been writing about the Vikings for a total of eight years. Five of those years have been here at Vikings Territory where he continues to surround himself with enough talented individuals that people keep coming back. As proud as he is of what Vikings Territory has become, his real treasures are in his home... a beautiful wife and three amazing children (and a dog named Percy).

Related Articles


  1. Thanks for the great article. Honestly, that’s my biggest problem with Kluwe and some (not all) of his supporters; they demonize and attempt to marginalize anyone who dares to disagree with them. I’ll call it like I see it, even of that means putting blame on the Vikings. Sadly, it’s getting harder and harder to respect a guy whose jersey I once paid good money to get (this was about 2007, after he had mentioned that no one cares about punters.) The whole situation is unfortunate, but Kluwe’s conduct has shredded whatever amount of good will I still had for him. I guess we’ll see how it all plays out.

  2. I just got home a bit ago from working on a Saturday myself. Blows.

    I bet Kluwe corrected you on “choses,” right?

    Anywho, regarding the “If it comes to speaking truth to power, standing up to blind fanaticism, that’s what I’m going to do” thing, did he ever mention Vikings fans by name? Honestly, I haven’t read everything that’s going on, so it’s not a leading question, just a question.

    1. Thanks for the catch, Tomb. No, I used “queue” instead of “cue.” He told me that meant people where defending and attacking in a line. I told him they were and that it was actually a witty play on words because of how they attack him on his Twitter timeLINE… he didn’t buy it, and he was right 🙂

    2. And I don’t know how to answer that, Tomb. I got the impression he was calling out Vikings fans a number of times in a number of places:

      In addition to the “Blind Fanaticism” comments in multiple places. The article I reference, I can admit that he may have been singling out Penn State fans… but the overall “conversation” has left me with the impression that he’s talking about Vikings fans.

  3. Kluwe’s Deadspin article carefully presented only information that made him look like a victim and the Vikings as being in the wrong. Then he complains that the Vikings report points out his hypocrisy. Then he threatens to sue the Vikings and complains that they seem to be preparing for a legal battle? No wonder he thinks he was cut due his activism/grandstanding. He doesn’t seem to have a very tight grip on reality or a very clear understanding of his own faults.

    1. What exactly did you think he would write in his deadspin article? The entire thing was about how he saw himself treated. On the other hand the Vikings released a “summary” of an investigative report that was 29 pages yet a small portion of it actually dealt with the report.

      For that matter he isn’t complaining they are preparing for a legal battle he is just stating that is the reason for the extremely one sided report that spent the majority of the pages trying to tackle his credibility.

  4. I’m not a twitter guy, so I pretty much never follow anything to do with it. After taking a quick stroll through Kluwe’s, this exchange is interesting:

    @ChrisWarcraft Not that i think the Vikings fired u for that,you just sucked. I wish u had a career ending injury that left u a paraplegic.

    Chris Kluwe ‏@ChrisWarcraft Jul 15
    . @Jon_F_Smith I would have gone with “left u a filthy bedpan licking camel shart,” but that’s just me.

  5. Thanks for the article Adam,it pretty much sums up my feelings on this whole affair.Kluwe got cut because of football reasons and he can’t accept it.The one comment I will add is that the longer this goes on the less respect I have for Kluwe.If he has information of players doing wrong with an underage girl then he needs to speak up,otherwise he is just as culpable as the perpetrators.

    1. I feel like I “get” Kluwe. I know I’m probably in the minority in this respect, but I do. What some see as offensive comments, I see as high-end trolling. Easy for me, as I agree with most of his politics.

      HOWEVER, I have to admit, the underage girl thing gives me serious pause. Not saying anything until much later on an unrelated issue is not cool.

      SECOND HOWEVER, the way he brings it up, as a threat, makes me think he did bring it up to Vikes management, and it also was swept under the rug.

      It pretty much has to be one or the other, I’m curious to know which.

      1. I suspect there is more to the Deadspin article about T-Jack and Rice and the girl than we are led to believe, otherwise Kluwe would have hopefully been smart enough to keep that one holstered.

        An insensitive boss is the type of thing you bring up to H.R., Tomb. But a person of integrity wouldn’t bring up a criminal offense involving underage girls to management, or at least not ONLY management… if he knows something he should have brought it to the police.

        1. For some damn reason, I don’t remember the initial story at all. I tried to track down the initial Deadspin article you referred to, but it appears its been removed.

          …and yeah, you’re right, it should have been something authorities were made aware of.

          I’m baffled by this one. I need more deetz.

      2. Yeah I am not sure how he can spin the underage girl thing. If he witnessed something and didn’t report he is just as guilty as the guys involved.

  6. Context is important as well. It’s not enough to determine whether specific words were uttered; you also have to determine the intent, the setting in which they were spoken, the way they were received, etc. That’s why this case will only become more convoluted once it goes to trial. It’s probably going to get even uglier before we see any real resolution. C’est la vie.

  7. Kluwe must feel his life is over. It is not; just the football side. Kluwe came in to the NFL with a big leg and a lot of potential. But Kluwe was never willing to work on his craft to the extent it would take for him to realize his potential. The man could have been a top punter in the league for a generation. But he has always been the man with potential and inconsistency became his middle name. In game’s against the Bear’s he was told to kick the ball out of bounds so Hester could not return them. He failed. It was suggested in print & on TV that he receive tutelage from Greg Coleman. Nothing came of it as the inconsistency in his ability to do his job proficiently. The man could have been more than an asset; he could have been a weapon sticking teams inside their own 10. He showed flashes of greatness in doing this. But he would kick to Hester, he would out kick the coverage, he’d kick the ball to the wrong side of the field. And of course too often the ball began to go in the end zone for a touch back. An independent evaluator looked at the 2012 game tape’s and said he would have released Kluwe at the end of the 2012 season. A punter in decline who’sppotential was never realized. A man who took his job so lightly he goofed around to the point of upsetting his coach in to derogatory language during practice when he should have been work on his craft. Instead of realizing he could have been better and that he shortened his own football career. He did what many people do. Latch on to an unrelated reason & blame someone else. Kluwe is not really interested in money. I don’t believe he will settle. His objective is to get his coach fired & embarrass the Vikings Organization. He has absolutely no interest in changing the locker room environment. This is pure vindictiveness. And the sports writers who has writing about this are just adding fuel to the fire. I guess it’s a popular thing to do……. Biting the hand that feed’s you.

  8. I’d like to be objective about this, and when so many people lean one way I at least try to think the other way to be sure the debate is fairly judged. But there was an excellent point, here and elsewhere, and it has to do with his ‘bomb dropping’. He is really sinking his own ship talking about serious matters this way as though he wasn’t going to come forward about these kinds of things if the Vikings had just.. Made him feel better about how he handled his unique position as a public figure by settling with him? He was creating controversy, how can you expect there to be no vitriol? But to espouse the whistle blower stance after trying to salvage your career elsewhere, your priorities only changed when your career ran out. Yes you were vocal on controversial subjects, but now you’re admitting to being a part of the very culture you’re attempting to expose. You were part of this same culture by hiding what went on, saying things that were dispassionate.. You heard everything on special teams! Yet until now, after the investigation you inspired didn’t leave a big enough dent, you’ve been silent about other problems you’ve had knowledge of. Why didn’t you just write a book!? It would have been so much cleaner!

  9. Reasonable for people to limit the basic human rights of others because they are different? Right to work, healthcare, marriage and freedom from persecution. I don’t think people against that because they are uncomfortable with difference are reasonable. Separate but equal is the side of history you are standing on. It is wrong. It is not reasonable. Trying to reframe it doesn’t work for reasonable people today or in the 1950s/60s.

    1. I guess I agree with what you said more or less vike 44, I don’t know who it’s aimed at though. Kluwe wasn’t even cut until after we tried out a new punter. The cost savings made sense, the guy didn’t get another job. Besides all of that, he’s been insensitive and derogatory himself. I just don’t see how agenda is a valid arguement. You can’t persecute someone for their religious belief system. If it wasn’t for that fact we wouldn’t even get the chance to counter with rationale, our culture would be controlled by rehashed versions of a thousands year old creed based upon posthumous word of mouth telling of the life of Jesus. It’s definitely a worthwhile book, almost any of the thousand reworked versions can offer excellent life lessons. But plainly, you eventually have to accept that no matter how far our culture leans towards acceptance of those who are ‘different’ eventually we also have to accept those who won’t. They too are allowed the same freedoms. The law also does what it was built to do, and protects people from being condemned for following a doctrine.

      1. Everyone gets to think what they think. You don’t get to use hate speech at work. That is what Priefer got punished for – not the punter thing. Kluwe just put it out there. My point is not to change minds of angry guys who hate gay and lesbian people. That ship has sailed. Just don’t give intolerant people the power to interfere with anyones right to live their life at home or at work.

        1. Ok.. But did he interfere? At what point did what Priefer was saying go from being part of the culture, and one persons opinion shared amongst cohorts to being blasphemy and at what point did it become targeted at Kluwes job? Because its hard to say that ever happened before Kluwe targeted Priefer and his job. Kluwe thought he’d get fired because his performance wasn’t making up for his outspoken behavior. If he’d been an All-Pro the team would have signed him to an extension. That’s how these things work. I agree with your blanket statements but this doesn’t feel like a legitimate demonstration of those principles being broken. Every time someone says something vain doesn’t mean they are going to go the next step and get rid of you.

  10. VIKE44: Are you under the impression that there are only two possible viewpoints on the issue of gay marriage? That anyone who doesn’t want the state redefining terms must not like gays or want equality for all? If so, let me introduce you to a shocking and scandalous idea: Maybe we don’t need the state to define or regulate marriage at all! We can all marry whoever we want, but we can’t use the government to beat our ideological opponents into submission. “What about medical decisions? What about the tax code?” Why should the state be favoring married couples in the first place? We’re all adults, and I’m saying we should start acting like it. Let the state protect things that are actual rights.

    1. There are only two viewpoints. 1) You can judge other people and take away their basic rights. 2) You cannot judge and take away other people’s basic rights. If you cant answer you are a #2.

      1. Those might be the only two viewpoints if that was the only issue being discussed here, but it isn’t. There are labor laws to discuss. Appropriate punishments for actions. Hypocrisy and overstepping. Corporate cover up.

        No offense, but in my opinion this was never solely about “basic rights” and it will never be that simple, or that black and white.

        1. Hey we don’t have to agree, but the big issue is that simple. Do you check box 1 or box 2. The other stuff is interesting but for many it is just camouflage because they don’t want to face what choosing 2 means. Anyway back to football.

          1. I would argue that this case actually has very little to do with equality or gay rights.

            It has to do with whether or not an employee of an unique organization with an unique hiring structure has the right to ask said employee to stop advocating in very public ways. It has to do with whether or not a football coach inappropriately harassed a player, and whether or not the organization condoned that behavior. It has to do with whether or not advocacy of a social issue provides an employee with immunity from being treated in a way many other employees get treated every year.

            Not buying in with Kluwe 100% does not mean siding with Priefer or the Vikings.

            Not buying into Kluwe’s claims as to why he was terminated does not make a person a bigot or unsupportive of the LGBT cause.

            People pretend that it is so black and white, people on both sides of this issue, but those people tend to have a much narrower view than I do about what the actual issues are here.

            If basic human rights is that simple of an issue, and it is black and white, then I suspect we are all okay with Antoine Winfield suing the Vikings for ageism? How about women suing the NFL for sexism? Racism?

            1. Yes, yes, all yes. Absolutely valid points when discussing this particular case. I wouldn’t pretend to argue with any of that.

              However, the exact question posed by AUTHAN was: “are you under the impression that there are only two possible viewpoints on the issue of gay marriage?”

              He didn’t ask about Kluwe and gay marriage, or the Vikes and gay marriage, just gay marriage.

              On that, while the arguments for or against can cover a broad range of personal beliefs, social mores, etc., at the end of the day, it’s pretty much yes or no. I suppose the third choice is “no opinion,” but then you know some pretentious jackass like me would say something like “complacency is complicity.”

  11. Honestly Adam? It’s not about gay rights it’s about advocacy. Did J Allen get shut down for advocating for soldiers on his time? It’s about intolerance for gay men and women being advocated for. Workplace law? The Vikings did not wait for a trial. They already suspended Priefer because of his actions and they could have fired him.

    I don’t know your position on this issue. I do know the NFL and the Vikings made their position clear on the ” Round up Gay people and execute them” Priefer talk at work. They investigated and suspended him. The Vikings checked a box. Save the BS side issues for next year while the suit is still going on about Kluwe getting damages or not. Who cares? I would not dream of telling anyone what to think, but I feel that people who can’t state their position. Should stop distorting the question and ask themselves why they can’t answer. It’s important.

    1. I’ve never stated my opinions on politics on the site because I don’t want to alienate half of our readership. A business decision, to be totally honest, but perhaps now is the time. I 100% support the equal treatment of LGBT individuals and couples. I haven’t always felt that way, but can say my tune changed significantly on the subject around 2005… so that’s my viewpoint, that’s out there.

      I do not, however, think that Chris Kluwe got “shut down” by any means for his advocacy and the comparison to Jared Allen doesn’t hold up. Kluwe used the celebrity that he earned through his employer in a manner that could easily be perceived as offensive by reasonable minds. His employer became aware that his actions had the potential to alienate part of their fanbase and he was approached on the subject.

      “Approached” is not the word to describe what Priefer did, however, and Priefer should be punished for those actions. The punishment may or may not be suitable to people of differing opinions, but that is a whole other argument.

      Kluwe’s own article was headlined “I was fired by a bigot and two cowards” and thus that is the subject of his beef: his release, not the gay rights issue.

      Spielman publically announced there would be a strong effort to get a younger roster after the 2012 season and the Kluwe-to-Locke swap wasn’t the only example of this for the Vikings, or the NFL as a whole.

      Kluwe was over that magic age of 30, coming off surgery, was entering the final year of his contract that HE signed and guaranteed him nothing in 2013, was more expensive than a rookie, and followed a draft in which Mike Priefer nailed it on a somewhat unpopular decision to draft Blair Walsh and send Ryan Longwell packing. Chris Kluwe’s situation was no different than dozens of others around the NFL to take place that offseason, and every offseason, outside of the fact that he was an outspoken advocate for many things… including gay rights.

      Priefer’s only public scathing of Kluwe came after the Ray Guy patch… that is one we KNOW bothered him. Yet, Kluwe is convinced the only reason he was released was because of his advocacy for gay rights. It seems like a stretch to be 100% sold on that as fact, at least to me, and there may have been a lot more boxes checked against him than just the one… if that one was even checked at all.

      1. I think the fact that they’d replaced longwell is as strong of evidence as any that this had nothing to do with Kluwes activism. We all hang on spielmans every move.. And there’s no doubt in my mind he went back to the blackjack table and doubled down after his winning ticket with Walsh. So far he’s got 13 with a 9 showing on the dealer. This one might not work out.

    2. Vike 44, I also just want to say that while our opinions differ, I appreciate this type of discourse. All too often, these types of conversations are uncivil and mean-spirited and I don’t think that is what is going on here. I think we are having a serious enough conversation to be meaningful without doing the whole %$(@#*%@ thing. I like that. I appreciate that. That is something I’ve also appreciated about Kluwe in my interactions with him.

      1. Thanks for replying. I definitely think this topic is important. I did not want to see the important topic get buried under the frivolous topic about liking Kluwe or Priefer. I respect that you put your thoughts out there. I feel strongly about this issue but I absolutely feel that no ones opinions ever get changed by comments from people on the opposite side of an argument. Only by thinking about an issue like you did can you figure out where you stand. Greatly respect your honesty on this issue. Looking forward to your stuff on the Vikings.

        1. VIKE 44: Did you even read my comment? I presented an alternative perspective. Your narrow view of the issue is a great example of why this country is do deeply divided. Honestly, check out a Nolan chart sometime. I have numerous friends who disagree over the morality of same sex relationships, yet they all opposed the marriage amendment because they disagree with the regulation of marriage on ideological grounds and because they believe in equal rights. Not everyone wants to force their moral code on others via the state. (They’re called libertarians, something Kluwe occasionally pretends to be.) I have no idea why you seem to believe the government has to regulate marriage and give special privileges to those who participate in it, but rejecting that view is not homophobic. Actually, I’d argue that by giving special legal benefits to married people, the government is discriminating against those who are not married. I’m beginning to think that this issue has very little to do with equal rights and everything to do with insulting and marginalizing people whose viewpoints you don’t like. Your black and white, all or nothing rhetoric is depressing. I respect your views, and all I’m asking you to do is extend the same courtesy to others.

          1. Ah to be young, and in (or fresh out of) college.

            Nolan Chart? What a fun college flashback. Certainly funner than L’Hopital’s rule.

            Just FYI, you can’t start a paragraph with “Your narrow view of the issue is a great example of why this country is do deeply divided,” then end with ” I respect your views, and all I’m asking you to do is extend the same courtesy to others.” The two don’t really co-mingle. Please consider that constructive criticism, with no malice intended.

            1. Narrow isn’t an insult, so there is nothing disrespectful about it. Furthermore, VIKE 44’s “Agree with me or you’re a bigot” rhetoric is incredibly divisive. Sadly, if you turn on any politically-oriented show, read any political blog, or even open a newspaper, you’ll find that the “us vs them”, “all or nothing” approach is more common than ever. Is it any wonder our system has become so dysfunctional? Barack Obama can’t pardon the Thanksgiving turkey without Republican opposition, and congress can’t get the IRS to cough up their magically disappearing emails without being stonewalled by everyone from Lois Lerner to the kid who works in the mail room.

              For the record, I’m 34, and I finished college a long time ago. Your sad attempt to marginalize libertarianism in general (and the Nolan chart in particular) by brushing it off as a youthful flirtation with political theory rather than a serious tool for gauging one’s ultimate political leanings is typical but disappointing. To varying degrees, we all want to force our views on others. For some people, their propensity for liberty or oppression is dependent on the specific issue. For many, at least among the far left and far right groups, *every* issue is vitally important, every question has only one correct answer, and as a result, their desire to control others knows no limits. That’s why a Nolan chart makes ideologues from both ends of the political spectrum so uncomfortable: It shows them that they are far more similar to one another than they could ever bring themselves to admit.

              I don’t know your political leanings, and to be honest, they aren’t relevant. All I have ever advocated for is the idea that personal decisions (like the meaning, relevance, and value of marriage) should be left up to the individual. It shouldn’t be rewarded or punished, nor should any particular viewpoint. This would be as beneficial for Chris Kluwe as it would for Tony Dungy.

              Of course, you probably thought liberty was a good thing back when you were in college (or just out of college), right? Ah, what a fun memory, much more fun than Euler’s formula, right? Hearkening back to the days of your youth, when the world was rich with opportunity, and your heart was filled with hope and wonder. Oh, to be young and idealistic again! But alas, you’re much older and wiser now, and you see that ideas like freedom or individual choice are childish fantasies. The world is no place for dreamers.

              By the way, it would have been more appropriate to use the phrase “more fun” rather than “funner”, as the latter isn’t technically a word (though it can be found in some dictionaries as a part of “informal” English.) Please consider that constructive criticism, with no malice intended. 🙂

              1. Cup of coffee, harmless banter.

                I enjoy the fact that two people who stand less divided than randomly selected participants would can have such a thorough discussion about the finer details, as though any of us can escape being more right without citing parsed rhetoric.

                The mainstream seems to have taken hold of freedom of speech, and freedom to dissent. It’s sad, the people arguing here are all basically on the same side. Yet what’s been produced from the Kluwe saga is ammunition for the masses (you might enjoy the drab commentary on the espn article about David tyree and the human rights group). I guess it’s not sad. It’s just painful to watch other conversations that come unhinged by venomous extremists. Round and round, where it will stop? It won’t. And it shouldn’t, widespread progress on these subjects doesn’t occur until the momentum swings.

              2. Well aren’t you just a firecracker! I thought I could be condescending, but I’m out of my league here. Well done, sir. Well done. I’ve seen more than a few irritating grammar Nazis in my time, but correcting acceptable grammar on a blog is well beyond my personal purview. That takes Dunning–Kruger to a whole new level. The really crazy part of that is within your first two sentences you have a slight grammatical mistake. I’m usually not interested in correcting grammar unless it’s way overboard, but you seem to be a fan, so let me help you out.

                Sadly, if you turn on any politically-oriented show…”

                I added the ellipsis at the end, as is proper. Anyways, “politically-oriented” does not require a dash. Disgustingly and ridiculously superfluous. How dare you!

                Annoying, isn’t it? What say we let the falderal slide?

                Let’s move on to the red meat, my “sad attempt” to marginalize libertarianism. I honestly don’t think libertarians need me to trivialize it, when it does such a fine job by itself. I have no use for it, never have. I have zero interest in the dystopian nightmare that would result. Liberty is a pretty vague concept. Liberty from what? Liberty from company scrip with product marked up at 4 times the value? Liberty from a livable wage? Liberty to go bankrupt from a medical condition? Liberty to be reduced to neo-feudalism?

                I’ve never been a fan, and I never will be.

                In any case, they day the feds legalize weed, I assume you will lose the political interest of half your group immediately.

                As far as your love for the Nolan chart, let’s go ahead and put a little dot on the chart representing where everyone in America falls in their political leanings. Now what? What is this chart supposed to do now? It’s a gauge. It gauges. Past that, what exactly does it do? Does it give you the undefined liberty you so desperately crave?

                Dream all you want, I could care less. We all have our dreams, but at some point, reality sets in. Santa isn’t real. I assume most kids want to grow up and be an astronaut, or a football player, but the world needs accountants, production managers, ditch diggers etc. I doubt most kids would declare they want to be a welder when they grow up, but again, life happens, and reality happens.

                Because you have some little weed enhanced dream of the government completely disavowing any interference or responsibility of and for marriage as a whole, you’re willing to let a certain sect of society, homosexuals, suffer because you have a completely different view of how it should be, and you expect me to “respect” that?

                Sure, I’ll respect that, as much as I respect libertarianism.

                By the way, I bet being called narrow is insulting to “broads.” Oh BOOM, nailed it! Stuck the landing.

                1. Oops! I said you made a mistake within your first two sentences, but it was actually the third sentence. That clearly wipes out my entire post.

                  Sucks to be me.

                  1. I do feel compelled to note that, apart from your deft analysis of various arguments no one as ever offered, you noted that there are more than two possible “dots” on a Nolan chart. Exactly! That was the point of my original comment regarding people like VIKES 44 who see everything in absolutes. Do you remember the part where he said there were only two options, judging gay people and denying them their rights or supporting new laws that legalize gay marriage? If that were true, there would only be two points on the Nolan chart. So, by your own admission, VIKES 44 was wrong and my original comment was right, which leaves me wondering what the point of this conversation was really about?

                2. Your skill in fighting straw men is unparalleled! I surrender! I tried to stand up to you, bit alas, I have no defense against your caricature-destroying arguments. Please, show mmercy toward the bizarre things you think I believe. No more…no more…

  12. To put the issue another way: What if we stopped calling marriage a “right” and started calling it a private institution that you are free to believe in if you choose, something that is meaningful to some and meaningless to others, a concept that means different things to different people? Wouldn’t real freedom and equality mean the right to make your own decisions regarding its value and definition? Chris Kluwe believes that the government should be defining and restricting access to marriage. He doesn’t want to make it available to everyone, he only wants to slightly expand the definition so that it’s available to an additional 5% of the population (based on CDC estimates, and including both gay and bisexual Americans.) According to VIKE 44, this still deprives anyone in a non-traditional relationship (one that is outside of the government or Chris Kluwe’s definition of “marriage”) of “basic human rights.” I’m saying we can simplify the entire issue (as much as possible) by separating things like end-of-life care, health insurance, or tax breaks from marriage altogether. We’re all adults, and we can make those decision on our own regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. Everyone can be equal under the law, everyone can define marriage in their own way, and those who choose not to get married can receive the same legal benefits of those who do get married. Our country has enough problems as it is. Do we really need to be fighting over how to “officially” define private beliefs?

  13. Authan, I completely agree with you and what your saying. But just give up on vike44. He views the world with his rose colored glasses and his narrow perception and bashes everyone with a slightly different perception. That’s why the worlds so divided. And BTW, NOTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE. The sooner people realize that. The better off we will all be.

    1. Ah, I know you’re right. SMH. Here’s to the start of training camp and real football talk.