"I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards and a Bigot"

[Marco Polo]

The Vikings organization and the NFL could be sued if any of this is true from the special teams coordinator.

I can't imagine the depths of lawsuits that would accrue if any leader in my organization said some of the things that the special teams coordinator said.

Not to turn this into a Duck Dynasty/religion conversation but you can have your opinion, you just can't say those vile things ("nuke it until it glows") while representing your organization.

http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-pla...208214#replies

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Is that what they call that monstrosity cradling him plums these days?

I don't get it...

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Klume knew with certainty that none of his co-workers were impacted, directly or indirectly, by child rape?

Oooh, shall we talk about the time two very well known Vikings players were caught in a compromising situation with an underage girl?

https://twitter.com/ChrisWarcraft/st...97653813469184

Not so much, it seems.

[Bufkin]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Klume knew with certainty that none of his co-workers were impacted, directly or indirectly, by child rape?

Then he would be indirectly offending somebody.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Eric Fisher

I don't give a frog's fat ass if it's offensive or not, that's not what made Priefer's comments so startling. You also need to recognize the difference of authority between the two. What an NFL coordinator says or does in the locker room should be held under more scrutiny than what a placekicker does. As I said, Kluwe probably shouldn't have done what he did, but to use that to try and counter the homophobic comments is nothing more than a red herring.

I'm clearly capable of grasping the situation. You're either incapable of doing so, or you're trolling.

Here, let me help you out a bit:

Certain types of comments, jokes, and pranks are never appropriate in the workplace and should not be encouraged or tolerated. Many topics are legally mandated as “off limits” in the workplace, and your employees should be prohibited from innuendos, and making comments or references about:

Sexual orientation or acts
Religious or political practices or beliefs
Race or ethnicity
Social status, gender, or age-related stereotypes
Physical appearance and attributes
Weight-related issues
Disabled persons, or persons with any form of diminished capacity
Any other topic that targets an individual or group as being inferior

http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/...riskshumor.htm

[Bufkin]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

https://twitter.com/ChrisWarcraft/st...97653813469184

Not so much, it seems.

Two of his teammates might be rapists, Kluwe should have taken that into consideration before making jokes about a rapist.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

https://twitter.com/ChrisWarcraft/st...97653813469184



Not so much, it seems.

You have no sense of timeline there either. And I said that he didn't know if a player was a victim.

Also, that hurts my argument.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

To be fair, he said Incognito was directly impacting a player. If Kluwe's child rape joke offended someone who had been a victim, it was more of an indirect effect since he wasn't going up to that individual. As well, he presumably didn't do it with forethought and malice.

foresight, malice, joking, serious, angry, jovial, just a dude, management, intent, carelessness.

Any other legal standards, none of which you understand or care to explain, anyone wants to throw in here to make a bright line distinction regarding the respective natures of two people expressing their opinion?

No, just 10 ill-formed half-ideas? Can't muster a baker's dozen?

[Bufkin]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I'm clearly capable of grasping the situation. You're either incapable of doing so, or you're trolling.

I'll put it in a deductive argument for you so you can view it in a more simple format, Lucy Liu.

1. I'm capable of grasping the situation.
2. I'm not trolling.
3. Therefore, you're a waterhead. (Or for an insult that is more familiar, an idiot douchebag)

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

foresight, malice, joking, serious, angry, jovial, just a dude, management, intent, carelessness.



Any other legal standards, none of which you understand or care to explain, anyone wants to throw in here to make a bright line distinction regarding the respective natures of two people expressing their opinion?



No, just 10 ill-formed half-ideas? Can't muster a baker's dozen?

I'm no lawyer, but I thought intent did matter in court.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Eric Fisher

I'll put it in a deductive argument for you so you can view it in a more simple format, Lucy Liu.

1. I'm capable of grasping the situation.
2. I'm not trolling.
3. Therefore, you're a waterhead. (Or for an insult that is more familiar, an idiot douchebag)

Another dickhead for the ignore list.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

You have no sense of timeline there either. And I said that he didn't know if a player was a victim.

Also, that hurts my argument.

Nicely done.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

Dude, I believe intent does matter in court.

1. Not always, it doesn't.

2. Such a facile statement of apparent reasonability, doesn't mask the fact to people who actually understand the issues that you don't know what you're talking about.

3. My point wasn't whether any particular standard did or didn't apply. It's that every time someone counters your side, you belch another buzzword 'standard' that supposed to be a game changer without explanation or apparent comprehension.

This could all be summed up and ended if you guys would just admit that you'd side with the evolved hipster big-mouth over the evil corporation most every time, regardless of the operant facts.

[Bufkin]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Another dickhead for the ignore list.

Good, and keep me there dickbutt.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

1. Not always, it doesn't.



2. Such a facile statement of apparent reasonability, doesn't mask the fact to people who actually understand the issues that you don't know what you're talking about.



3. My point wasn't whether any particular standard did or didn't apply. It's that every time someone counters your side, you belch another buzzword 'standard' that supposed to be a game changer without explanation or apparent comprehension.



This could all be summed up and ended if you guys would just admit that you'd side with the evolved hipster big-mouth over the evil corporation most every time, regardless of the operant facts.

Also, habeas corpus.

I don't think I've been spouting buzz words. But whatever.

You're being very serious, and I have taken a decidedly light tone, because while I do see a difference (maybe no legal difference, I still totally see what Fisher is saying and mostly agree), I don't much care.

To your final point, I kinda like Kluwe, and whether or not he wins in law he absolutely will win in the court of public opinion.

And **** the Vikings.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

I don't get it...

Spaced on you referring to yourself. Thought you were referring to Eric Winston's 'Bubba Flubber Ray Cyrus in a junk-scrunchy' in his avatar.