Does Torii Hunter get unfairly crushed for his stance on SSM?

[TheLeviathan]

 

http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-player-until-i-was-fired-by-two-cowards-an-1493208214

 

My feeling is that there is a lot more to suggest that Preifer's views are his than there are of Hunter's.  You may differ. 

 

Seriously, you think that clown Kluwe's version of how things happened is more reliable than a guy who has a tape recorder in front of Torii's face?

 

Good lord man.  I'm sure Preifer shares the same beliefs Torii does.  The only difference is Torii's were shared with the world by a journalist and Preifer's were shared by an attention starved doofus.

 

They both think the same thing, I'm not sure what your point is other than you appear to be resistant to the idea that Torii has made some very criticize-able comments.  

[gunnarthor]

 

Seriously, you think that clown Kluwe's version of how things happened is more reliable than a guy who has a tape recorder in front of Torii's face?

 

Good lord man.  I'm sure Preifer shares the same beliefs Torii does.  The only difference is Torii's were shared with the world by a journalist and Preifer's were shared by an attention starved doofus.

 

They both think the same thing, I'm not sure what your point is other than you appear to be resistant to the idea that Torii has made some very criticize-able comments.  

I will restate my position in the very first post -

 

"My guess it's an issue he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about.  Hunter did claim his quotes were taken out of context (and the ... in the original article suggests that).  He also did an ad for the GOP governor in the AK election which is brought up a lot but the part that's often ignored is how little SSM was an issue. The democratic nominee openly opposed SSM and voted against LGBT issues while he was in the House. It wasn't an issue there.

 

My thoughts are that his views are more or less common place in baseball and people generally bring them up because they have a different ax to grind with Hunter, usually b/c he's been outspoken on racial issues in ways that are tough for whites to appreciate."

 

I bolded the part that I think is the reason this crap gets brought up so much.  You want to equate two sentences used out of context to equate Hunter with Preifer, who used homophobic language for months, joked about killing gays and ugly AIDS jokes.  Fine. I can see a big difference both between Hunter and Priefer and your stated motives and what I think your motives really are.  But now we're veering toward the moderators banning me again.  So I'll just leave it at this - if Hunter were white or if he wasn't outspoken on racial matters, his views on gay rights wouldn't have been brought up nearly as much.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, I guess that settles it.  You clearly have to be a racist to criticize Torii Hunter's comments.

 

 

Woofta.

 

[gunnarthor]

 

Well, I guess that settles it.  You clearly have to be a racist to criticize Torii Hunter's comments.

 

 

Woofta.

You don't have to be but there certainly are quite a few.  Those are probably the same idiots who used to call Tarvaris Jackson "Tar baby" or suggested that black kids are more violent than white kids.  Or the guys who roll their eyes at discussions of racism inherent in our society. And I've never been shy about expressing how much I enjoy watching Hunter piss those people off.

 

But this thread asked if we thought Hunter was unfairly criticized for his views and I believe I explained why I think the answer is yes. 

[TheLeviathan]

You've gone further than that.  You've eliminated any valid criticism of him other than for reasons of racism.  And you doubled down on that in your last post, strongly suggesting that to criticize Hunter is to be a racist.

 

I'll politely call that preposterous, though stronger terms are warranted for much of what you've said in this thread.

[gunnarthor]

 

You've gone further than that.  You've eliminated any valid criticism of him other than for reasons of racism.  And you doubled down on that in your last post, strongly suggesting that to criticize Hunter is to be a racist.

 

I'll politely call that preposterous, though stronger terms are warranted for much of what you've said in this thread.

Nonsense - I've already re-posted my criticisms of Hunter from the first post.  But I've also pointed out that some people don't know what Hunter actually did say (fake black people) or the extent of his 'very public comments' to show that why I think the level of outrage toward him has been over the top.

 

Don't worry about being polite - if I didn't know you'd report me to the mods, I'd be far more open with my views on some of the racist **** that gets posted around here.

[mikecgrimes]

 

If that was the only thing he did, imo, he'd catch less.

He also was either racist or "culturally insensitive" to Dominicans and other people faking being black (his words).

He also thinks it is cool to use his position to impose his beliefs on others, but NOT cool to be asked about that, and is very rude to anyone that does. Can't have it both ways, if you put it out there, you have to be willing to talk about it, not call people pricks (his words) over and over in public.

I have no idea what is "too much" or "unfair" in how people feel about him. For me, if it was just a guy being wrong about SSM, that would be very different than actively campaigning for it, then being a total jerk when people ask him about it. Oh, and the whole "racist" thing.

 

Remember if you have the wrong political opinions you are wrong and a jerk.  The arrogence of Democrats is remarkable.

[biggentleben]

 

Remember if you have the wrong political opinions you are wrong and a jerk.  The arrogence of Democrats is remarkable.

 

It's the media's bias, you know...

[mikecgrimes]

 

It's the media's bias, you know...

 

Media bias denier?

[biggentleben]

 

Media bias denier?

 

That every bit of media is bias against the GOP, absolutely. I find it ridiculous how much the right blames media for their perception in the American public, though. Couldn't possibly be their terrible policies that hurt the majority of Americans, could it?

[Squirrel]

Let's not get sidetracked here. We have several ongoing political threads in which to disagree.

[Craig Arko]

Should people be accountable for what they say? -- Yes.

 

If I use what they say in one setting to marginalize their accomplishments in another, am I any better than they are? -- No.

[Hrbowski]

He absolutely is unfairly criticized for it by some. Those who thought that the Twins should not bring him back because of his stance on the issue are ridiculous, as are those who think that he should not have said anything about it. He never said anything hateful, he just stated that he was against it.

[DaveW]

You don't have to be but there certainly are quite a few. Those are probably the same idiots who used to call Tarvaris Jackson "Tar baby" or suggested that black kids are more violent than white kids. Or the guys who roll their eyes at discussions of racism inherent in our society. And I've never been shy about expressing how much I enjoy watching Hunter piss those people off.

 

But this thread asked if we thought Hunter was unfairly criticized for his views and I believe I explained why I think the answer is yes.

Good lord, give me a break.

 

The same people who have issues with Hunter are the same people who have issues with Daniel Murphy etc to act like hunter is somehow the victim of racism in this regard is just so off base.

 

Fwiw I have never heard anyone call TJack a "tar baby" especially not at a twinsdaily owned site and definitely not BYTO. So I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

[DaveW]

He absolutely is unfairly criticized for it by some. Those who thought that the Twins should not bring him back because of his stance on the issue are ridiculous, as are those who think that he should not have said anything about it. He never said anything hateful, he just stated that he was against it.

Saying he wouldn't want to share a locker room with a gay teammate is extremely hateful. Telling people they don't deserve the same rights as another group of people is also hateful.

[DaveW]

Should people be accountable for what they say? -- Yes.

 

If I use what they say in one setting to marginalize their accomplishments in another, am I any better than they are? -- No.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hunter wasn't a very good to great ball player. Most people are able to seperate the person from the work (i.e. Michael Jackson is a horrible person who should have been in jail, but he did make great music)

[Hrbowski]

 

Saying he wouldn't want to share a locker room with a gay teammate is extremely hateful. Telling people they don't deserve the same rights as another group of people is also hateful.

So you have to want to share a locker room with a gay teammate to not be extremely hateful? Torii Hunter never said they don't deserve the same rights as other people, so you are either a liar or have been given misinformation.

[Hrbowski]

"I'm very disappointed in Kevin Baxter's article in which my quotes and feelings have been misrepresented. He took two completely separate quotes and made them into one quote that does not express how I feel as a Christian or a human being. I have love and respect for all human beings regardless of race, color or sexual orientation. I am not perfect and try hard to live the best life I can and treat all people with respect. If you know me you know that I am not anti anything and to be portrayed as anti-gay in this article is hurtful and just not true" -  Torii Hunter

[TheLeviathan]

I would suggest that some of that retort is simply him saving face. Many, many people caught saying something stupid plea "taken out of context" and rarely is that defense warranted. We know he said these things verbatim, whether they are put side by side or apart doesn't change their content.

 

It's clear how Torii feels (against SSM) so I'm not sure why anyone is taking the absurd position of spinning that. Some of the arguments minimizing or deflecting those remarks in this thread are just flat out stupid. The larger question for us reasonable folks is how to appropriately respond to his opinion.

 

Personally I think there is too much vitriol directed at him for it, but I also think his opinion is stupid and backwards. I'm hoping since Torii seems like a he's generally a good guy that his opinion might be won over in the future.

[DaveW]

So you have to want to share a locker room with a gay teammate to not be extremely hateful? Torii Hunter never said they don't deserve the same rights as other people, so you are either a liar or have been given misinformation.

By being against SSM you are saying they doesn't deserve the same rights as other people. Feel free to tell me how disallowing a segment of the population the RIGHT to marriage is somehow "equal rights"

 

Call me a liar or misinformed all you want, but in this case I am neither.

[DaveW]

I would suggest that some of that retort is simply him saving face. Many, many people caught saying something stupid plea "taken out of context" and rarely is that defense warranted. We know he said these things verbatim, whether they are put side by side or apart doesn't change their content.

 

It's clear how Torii feels (against SSM) so I'm not sure why anyone is taking the absurd position of spinning that. Some of the arguments minimizing or deflecting those remarks in this thread are just flat out stupid. The larger question for us reasonable folks is how to appropriately respond to his opinion.

 

Personally I think there is too much vitriol directed at him for it, but I also think his opinion is stupid and backwards. I'm hoping since Torii seems like a he's generally a good guy that his opinion might be won over in the future.

totally him trying to save face, it's proven by the fact that he continues to double down on his opinions on the matter every chance he gets. See: political ad.

 

I too hope he changes his stance, certainly there have been lots of people with even "stronger" takes on the matter that have changed their mind.

[TheLeviathan]

Marriage isn't a right, it's a license you obtain by meeting certain conditions. A license you can also opt out of.

 

But a license gay people should be allowed.

[USAFChief]

Marriage isn't a right, it's a license you obtain by meeting certain conditions. A license you can also opt out of.

But a license gay people should be allowed.

Concur.

 

IMO people can have legitimate religious reasons to believe SSM is sinful. That doesn't make those people hateful.

 

But I can't rationalize the unconstitutionality of allowing some adults to enter into a legal contract but not others, based solely on gender.

 

That's the issue, and that's where Hunter is wrong.

[DaveW]

Concur.

 

IMO people can have legitimate religious reasons to believe SSM is sinful. That doesn't make those people hateful.

 

But I can't rationalize the unconstitutionality of allowing some adults to enter into a legal contract but not others, based solely on gender.

 

That's the issue, and that's where Hunter is wrong.

Good point, and I agree with the gist of what you are saying.

 

IMO a person using religion as an "easy" excuse to discriminate against a class of people is an act of cowardness. I am a proud Catholic as is my immediate family and we all support it, my future wife and her family are Iranian and support it, and I have plenty of friends from every other religion that support it.

Hiding behind a religion to discriminate against a group of people is just disgusting. At least come out and be honest and say you don't agree instead of hiding behind a couple open for interpretation passages from the bible etc

[DaveW]

Marriage isn't a right, it's a license you obtain by meeting certain conditions. A license you can also opt out of.

 

But a license gay people should be allowed.

perhaps "right" isn't the right word, but you get what I was saying. I still have yet to hear an argument in how gay marriage effects anyone "negatively"

[TheLeviathan]

I agree with you Dave, I just try and make a point to push back as often as I can to this bizarre trend to call everything we want a "right". The way the term is being employed by many groups is really problematic and, to me, annoying. It seems like a disengenuous way of trying to make your plight more sympathetic by describing it as something it isn't.

 

And given the enormous changes religions have undergone over the last few hundred years it should be obvious to anyone hiding behind their faith that it's only a matter of time before most major faiths recognize it. Don't make the world drag you along and stay on the wrong side of history. Get over it and let committed individuals marry and raise a family if they choose to. We are all better off for it.

[DaveW]

I agree with you Dave, I just try and make a point to push back as often as I can to this bizarre trend to call everything we want a "right". The way the term is being employed by many groups is really problematic and, to me, annoying. It seems like a disengenuous way of trying to make your plight more sympathetic by describing it as something it isn't.

 

And given the enormous changes religions have undergone over the last few hundred years it should be obvious to anyone hiding behind their faith that it's only a matter of time before most major faiths recognize it. Don't make the world drag you along and stay on the wrong side of history. Get over it and let committed individuals marry and raise a family if they choose to. We are all better off for it.

Well said, that all makes sense. I still think it's close to a "right" fwiw

 

Pope Francis has pretty much all but said he is "cool" with it. Not to go off topic but he has been great for the church IMO

[biggentleben]

Very interesting article about Daniel Murphy showed up on my timeline today:

 

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/14009526/the-stages-understanding-root-daniel-murphy

[DaveW]

Very interesting article about Daniel Murphy showed up on my timeline today:

 

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/14009526/the-stages-understanding-root-daniel-murphy

kate Fagan is an amazing writer and some of the best current talent ESPN has, I wish they would feature her more prominently then Around The Horn and espnw (which to be honest, most folks dont read)

 

As to Murphy, he has at least seemed to "back off" his comments over the last year or so, at least he is showing a willingness to listen/potentially change.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Very interesting article about Daniel Murphy showed up on my timeline today:

 

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/14009526/the-stages-understanding-root-daniel-murphy

 

I just got to this, it's an excellent article.  Personally I agree with that last paragraph tremendously.  Yes, I don't like Daniel Murphy's opinion.

 

But hating him or attacking him accomplishes absolutely nothing.  In fact, it might set what I really want (universal acceptance) backwards.

 

We already have too many places in our society in which debates and discussion are stifled for any number of asinine reasons (looking at you Universities....), we don't need to add to that.  We'll win over the faith crowd eventually, but it won't be with vitriol.