An Open Letter to My Climbing Community

John, honest question for you. How can you or I be bullied on the Internet if we simple refuse to read the bullier's post? I really don't get it.

People post that I'm an asshole all the time. I don't feel bullied, but I do respond in kind. It's not hard or epic or tramatizing it's the friggin Internet not Syria.

I can understand admins wanting to change the tone of a forum. I can't understand the need to make sure everyone that reads the forum never gets their feelings hurt. The real world doesn't work that way.

I've found that there are many analytic, engineering-minded folks that climb. Which makes sense. It's just one big problem, how do i get me, up there. Solve it.

With that said, i used to enjoy many a weekend up in Golden, at the School of Mines, with my analytic, engineering-type friends. And these guys would argue to the death about minute details. (really entertaining btw)

In a lot of these debates, they were right next to each other in terms of theory, like right next, but couldn't see the forest through the trees so to speak. so they argued. and i would laugh.

I guess my point is, a lot of people on these forums aren't much different from drunken engineer college kids, in that they don't give an inch on some issues, and they'll fight tooth and nail because that's who they are. for better or worse.

It is sad to see how in a sport that could support some good camaraderie, there's usually more bickering.

I guess just remember that often times the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

C'mon guys, the Popa is in town. Remember the Golden Rule, for it is humanity that keeps us alive, not ropes and bolt wars. At least we don't burn each other at the stake anymore....in real life

Jim, even if the victim does not read the posts folks in the community will and it will indirectly cause harm. If you fling shit my looking away won't keep it from hitting me.

Moreover just because the real world is nasty and brutish doesn't mean you need to be. On the other side of the keyboard is another human being. I strive to not be known as an asshole.

Both SACC & CASA seek to do good for the S. Arizona climbing community.

In my opinion, both have done significant good.

Disparaging them probably harms (to some extent) all S. Arizona climbers.

I wish we could disagree without being quite so disagreeable.

But these internecine quarrels have existed for a very long time. Humans rarely change. Killing our neighbors has been a time honored tradition since we appeared on the planet. I do not see it changing anytime soon.

It always amazes me we have not already destroyed ourselves.

I used to think climbers were different. I used to think climbing ennobled.

Now I fear we climb---mostly to be perceived as being noble.

Now I realize that climbers, at best, are no different---Trump/Clinton versus Clinton/Trump —bitter unchanging, perpetual personal animosity. They push their own agendas, sometimes they benefit the community, but mostly they just benefit themselves. Climbing imitates life.

Which is worse— the vitriol or the censorship?

China zealously prohibits its citizens from speaking or accessing the Internet. Despotic governments censor. They fear speech. They fear ideas different from their own. Burning books is the hallmark of a totalitarian regime.

If Trump/Clinton could, then I am sure they would silence their opponent---—they want to win. They seek to create a separate reality, in which they hope you fervently believe.

But in the U.S. we tolerate very broad spectrum of speech when it concerns public figures and public policy. The unruly market place of ideas promotes wisdom. And who wants others to determine what we are permitted to read?

While vitriolic speech in the various threads may damage our S. Arizona climbing interests, I would prefer it to censorship. I would prefer the standard to be the same as the U.S. law surrounding censorship/defamation of public figures. In law, speech (very generally) about public figures goes too far when there is “actual malice ”—that is to say, knowledge that the information is false or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Truth is the ultimate defense.

In my view, these unruly discussions almost always concern public figures in our S. Arizona climbing community.

The bottom line, however, is that Mountain Project is privately owned---a for profit business. The First Amendment does not apply. The owners’ (advertisers/readers) dollars must of necessity be the ultimate arbiter of what speech is allowed. We are guests in the neighbor’s home whose mortgage is paid by the advertisers.

Strangely though, it is “these disagreeable threads” that seem to be the most popular---—if “views” are any indication.

For me, tolerating and disputing disagreeable views seem better than censoring.

I believe that in the market place of ideas---good ones frequently prevail.

thecmacattack wrote: a lot of these debates, they were right next to each other in terms of theory, like right next, but couldn't see the forest through the trees so to speak. so they argued. and i would laugh. .

The broad strokes of common theories are widely accepted. It is in the minutia that we find new discoveries so much of the time. Just because the subtleties of an argument are beyond you does not mean that the debate was pointless

thecmacattack wrote:I've found that there are many analytic, engineering-minded folks that climb. Which makes sense. It's just one big problem, how do i get me, up there. Solve it. With that said, i used to enjoy many a weekend up in Golden, at the School of Mines, with my analytic, engineering-type friends. And these guys would argue to the death about minute details.

Something else to factor in - the age of the people debating/arguing. When we're in college we are so convinced we're right, all the time, and we'll argue a given position to death. In climbing you can also add in the certainty of being a (self-perceived) expert after that first two years of climbing.

gription wrote: Just because the subtleties of an argument are beyond you does not mean that the debate was pointless

Case in point.

Clearly, due to the fact that every human is going to die, either rock climbing, or from a coronary, or a car accident etc... we should make no attempt to be civil, kind, or *gasp, downright nice to eachother.

I mean...

It's all just so.....

....futile.....

All philosophical discussions and personality conflicts aside, there is at least some probability that CASA and SACC will HAVE to work together to some extent on future events in the Homestead, correct?

powhound84 wrote: You mean everyone doesn't fart rainbows? *GASP*

I farted a rainbow once...I ate a lot of skittles for breakfast that day. Also, on an unrelated topic, be nice, be unique, and most importantly be yourself. Bullies are afraid of their own emotions and shortcomings. Be nice to them and lead by example. They'll either get it or they won't, but at least you tried :) And don't forget to climb hard...SHOOP!!

Christian wrote:All philosophical discussions and personality conflicts aside, there is at least some probability that CASA and SACC will HAVE to work together to some extent on future events in the Homestead, correct?

Eric Sophia, care to field that question?

We need to stop hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

John, I've never found it very hard to duck if I was worried about someone's flung shit hitting me. Maybe I just have quicker reflexes than most.

On another note, I have to agree with Scott mac, I'd rather sort through the vitriol than have it arbitrarily censored.

The funniest thing about all of this is that I've never had a bad experience meeting other climbers in real life. I was just climbing at Joe's and Yosemite for the past month, and literally everyone I talked to was awesome, respectful, and just generally stoked to be out climbing.

I think this internet shit gets crazy because we'd all just rather be outside than be sitting in front of a computer.

Here's my take for what little it's worth. I agree with much of what has been said: (1) I tend towards very minimal censorship, (2) That said I'm no fan of personal attacks, & (3) as a private business the decision is up to MP.

I see another issue here. What I don't care for is the hijacking of an informational thread. I read MP to gather information on climbing areas and events within the community. I have no interest in other people's personal disputes (or my own for that matter). So when someone posts information on an event, I would like the thread to stay on message. If you want to say something critical about someone, start your own post, e.g. "Bob Smith is a jerk". That way people can know that they will get to see what they want by the topic of the thread.

well said Joe.. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Emily,

I'm coming to this post a little late, but I just want to say "thank you!" We really do have a great community here in Tucson, and it is unfortunate that so many MP posts devolve, most likely due to only a few overly vocal people.

John

Thank you also for your very considered responses as administrator.

--Abby

Every local I've met around Tucson has been especially nice, including the hunted witch himself so I dont get it either. Its not often people go out of their way to show you crags/problems, offer you showers and a place to stay, offer you climbs on their rope or unlimited beta on semi unknown crags (only after asking). I can god damn guarantee you that doesnt happen in other climbing towns nearly as often as it does in S AZ. IMHO

{{{{^^^ a pathetic excuse not to climb... By the way people will judge you on your looks no matter where you go, except for Washington state and parts of Montana maybe.}}}}

It would be nice if people were attracted to climbing because of the fun, exercise, excitement, nature AND the people. Rather than being repulsed by it because of the people. Thanks Producer for helping me make my point.