Rename that route NOW! The topic.

(this was posted above but I messed it up in an edit)

We also all need to realize that everything we do doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Decisions you make will influence and impact other people.  Whether that's posting online, naming routes, putting those names into guidebooks, things you joke about at the crag, and the ways we interact with each other not just in person, but also online.  You can't name a route and not at least consider the ramifications.  While a name like, "Wetback" you might not find offensive, it signals to members of the community that this sort of vocabulary and attitude is acceptable and encouraged.  By having the climbing community not speak against things like this, we are telling people that might already feel like they don't quite fit, that hey, we welcome you, but we also are cool with jokingly using terms that are really awful towards you.

Rob D. wrote: It also feels very childish to me to lash out at "SJW"'s (shouldn't we all be striving to be warriors for social justice anyway?  why is that even an insult!?).  If you don't agree with someone politically, it's just so petty to be reactionary in the way that some people are describing.  With sentences like, "But some triggered activist gets in my face, and I'm responding with at least matching energy if not more.", it's hard for me not to say, "Maybe you should grow up?"  I also can't imagine a situation where anyone would get in my face over frankly anything (maybe a parking spot?).  Like, in what weird aggressive world are you just randomly running into people that start yelling at you?  And even if someone is "getting in your face" just move on?  

I just can't imagine myself getting so angry at someone scolding me that I would double down on my behavior?

I can. It's when us evil social justice warriors realize the cause is worth the fight. Sometimes literally. That's what helped get 18 year olds the vote, ended the draft, got women the vote, took down "whites only" signs, kept Muslim ladies wearing hijabs safe on 9/12.....it's a long list. Yes, it is the last resort, but I personally will go in harm's way, if need be, to protect someone else. 

Shouting back when someone shouts at you? Yes. Now and then, but not for the reasons Mike Lane would. Standing up to unreasonable people and standing your ground, helps to make an easy target less vulnerable to attack. "Shouting", I have lost my temper. Sticking with it? Whole other thing, but both can happen, in the same conversation, even. Now and then, rarely, anger is appropriate and should be applied, but not let off leash except if it's truly life or death.

Best, OLH

Rob D. wrote: It also feels very childish to me to lash out at "SJW"'s (shouldn't we all be striving to be warriors for social justice anyway?  why is that even an insult!?). 

Rob,

Could you define "social justice"? Maybe I want to be a warrior, too! But I need to know what it means (your definition)

I take it none of y'all are climbing this weekend.  

FrankPS wrote:

Rob,

Could you define "social justice"? Maybe I want to be a warrior, too! But I need to know what it means (your definition)

While I assume this is clearly some trolly comment to try to get me to post something you can nitpick or pick a choice quote from, I'm going to approach it in a different way by talking about one point of fighting for social justice that I think is important and often overlooked:  Inclusion within our community.  

It's very easy to say that we don't exclude anyone based on gender/race/ethnicity/sex/nationality/etc. because we don't tell people they can't climb if they're black, we don't outlaw homosexuals from competing, and you'll rarely hear someone use "the n word" at a crag in a hateful way, but there are still some very clear ways that we are not inclusive.  I think it's harder to take a step back and consider how small things we do are exclusive because frankly, we can all say we travel a lot, we've mostly all lived in urban and suburban environments, many of us have lived abroad, and as a whole everyone has probably at some point thought "I'm not racist".  We all assume that as long as we aren't being hateful, that we are being helpful, and simple things like route names paint a pretty clear picture that we are not nearly as accepting as we feel like we are.  

The biggest change I found in myself was when I stopped trying to justify things I was doing, and started assessing how my decisions affected others.  I think more important than "standing up for what you believe in" is searching for how your beliefs have negatively impacted those that our community claims to embrace.  We don't necessarily have to apologize or rationalize things we've done in the past, but is we are able to look at them, accept that it is no longer acceptable behavior, and change moving forward, I think that it is a pretty easy and positive way to fight for social justice.  

PosiDave wrote:

Another Yuppie liberal from LA assuming everyone is white like them. Did I miss anything? 

Nice overgeneralization there (which is characteristic of some with racist views), and yes you did.  You missed the obvious that the point I was making may pertain to you.  

Marc801 C wrote:

Wait. Who's the triggered one?

Exactly the point I was making.  

Rob D. wrote:

While I assume this is clearly some trolly comment to try to get me to post something you can nitpick or pick a choice quote from, I'm going to approach it in a different way by talking about one point of fighting for social justice that I think is important and often overlooked:  Inclusion within our community.  

It's very easy to say that we don't exclude anyone based on gender/race/ethnicity/sex/nationality/etc. because we don't tell people they can't climb if they're black, we don't outlaw homosexuals from competing, and you'll rarely hear someone use "the n word" at a crag in a hateful way, but there are still some very clear ways that we are not inclusive.  I think it's harder to take a step back and consider how small things we do are exclusive because frankly, we can all say we travel a lot, we've mostly all lived in urban and suburban environments, many of us have lived abroad, and as a whole everyone has probably at some point thought "I'm not racist".  We all assume that as long as we aren't being hateful, that we are being helpful, and simple things like route names paint a pretty clear picture that we are not nearly as accepting as we feel like we are.  

The biggest change I found in myself was when I stopped trying to justify things I was doing, and started assessing how my decisions affected others.  I think more important than "standing up for what you believe in" is searching for how your beliefs have negatively impacted those that our community claims to embrace.  We don't necessarily have to apologize or rationalize things we've done in the past, but is we are able to look at them, accept that it is no longer acceptable behavior, and change moving forward, I think that it is a pretty easy and positive way to fight for social justice.  

Thank you, Rob. It wasn't a trick question, but I don't think you answered the "what is social justice" question. Maybe you're saying it means going on a drive to recruit minorities into climbing? (as an example of social justice) I'm not sure what you mean, but thanks for taking the time.

s.price wrote:

NEVER works. So now we have another stupid thread in reference to a stupid thread.

"So Son, take your snarky remarks elsewhere and push your agenda onto someone else. You are just another pseudo educated white person who has a superiority complex."

This is awesome.  In the last few days I've heard Tuttle referred to as "millennial," "son" and "pseudo-educated."  Gotta love Internet forums    :-/

How do people feel about companies using Native or foreign culture for marketing.

Pataloha shirt being one of them. I know a few Hawaiians who think it is BS that a company from Cali is capitalizing on that. (Based on it was supported by the state of Hawaii as a advertisement for the islands, in return pushig real estate to be unaffordable for most locals).

Does that mean Patagonia should be bashed for these action until they discontinue it?

Point is, lots of things are inappropriate and still regularly acceptable to most when not done in harming manner.

@Frank and Steve, stupid as it is, we are talking. No, the world isn't suddenly going to be populated with rainbows and unicorns, TG, but.....slowly, slowly, thoughtful people listen, and tiny shifts take place.

I know there are far more in the silent majority out there. Not speaking is not the same as not hearing what us loudmouths are willing to say and do. How do I know this? Simple. They have told me so, in private, some of them. Don't rule out the "lurkers' who make up the vast majority of those visiting MP.

Or. Your coworkers. The people at the bus stop. Your barrista. The dudes who do your lawn care....basically anyone  you meet. Hmm....that line seems familiar.

Social justice? Not that hard to define, hard to implement. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. The "social" part is the tough bit, because it then becomes applicable to a broader group than just you and your homies. Perhaps? Worth going to jail for, if your government has institutionalized injustice. Another country? Perhaps war. Those decisions are a helluva lot more important than a route name, but the conversation does start with something that picayune.

Best, Helen

PosiDave wrote:

  As a Native, last time we listened (to whites) the only thing we got in return was casinos, shitty land and alcoholism. 

Never trust the White devil? 

Good to see that racism knows no color? You do realize that not all Whites are racists trying to sell you whiskey, right?

don't accept that racism is given. It has to be taught by people who want to exploit fears like someone seems to have taught you.

Not accepting the use of racist language is part of telling people what they have learned is wrong.

Old lady H wrote: 
Social justice? Not that hard to define, hard to implement. Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

Best, Helen

So social justice is the same as The Golden Rule? That's easy!

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Never trust the White devil? 

I’m white/native.. You have called meRacist on two opposite sides because i don’t agree with you.
Offensive things/names change over time (African American/Black name debate). 
WASP’s have used censorship/education as a way to take advantage of minorities for centuries. Uncivilized heathens need taught the “right” ways was a excuse for a lot of history. (They we’re doing natives a favor in their minds).
Telling a black person they can’t say N. Is the mansplaining of race. 
100% people should be offended by stuff and know who is racist, but demanding censorship is only good when you are on the right side. I’d rather have a racist be open to my face so I can make my call to do business with them, instead of silently promote that agenda.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/millennials-dont-fear-censorship-because-they-plan-on-doing-all-the-censoring/amp/

PosiDave wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/millennials-dont-fear-censorship-because-they-plan-on-doing-all-the-censoring/amp/

thoughtful article.  thanks for sharing.

PosiDave wrote: I’m white/native.. You have called meRacist on two opposite sides because i don’t agree with you.
Offensive things/names change over time (African American/Black name debate). 
WASP’s have used censorship/education as a way to take advantage of minorities for centuries. Uncivilized heathens need taught the “right” ways was a excuse for a lot of history. (They we’re doing natives a favor in their minds).
Telling a black person they can’t say N. Is the mansplaining of race. 

100% people should be offended by stuff and know who is racist, but demanding censorship is only good when you are on the right side. I’d rather have a racist be open to my face so I can make my call to do business with them, instead of silently promote that agenda.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/millennials-dont-fear-censorship-because-they-plan-on-doing-all-the-censoring/amp/

No dude, I called you racist because you said don't trust white people.

You also want to create a "space" where people are comfortable expressing their racism, so that you can then "know" them. These "safe spaces" for racists are precisely why it persists. Guidebooks shouldn't be safe places for racists, misogynists or other bigots. As well, others don't feel like you do about it and prefer that ie racist route names not be honored by publication in guides.

This is not remotely the same thing as historical racist censorship/authorship that contributed to racial animus in this country. I think you are a little confused. Its the exact problem we are trying to address.

I don't tell anyone they can't use the N-word or any other racist epitaph, just that if they do in the wrong context (ie not Black or in a Guidebook) they got some 'splaining to do at the price of my friendship/patronage/may be in for some public criticism.

So I was going to name a new route "Festering Pustule of Joyfulness and Light."

That's cool, right?

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

No dude, I called you racist because you said don't trust white people.

You also want to create a "space" where people are comfortable expressing their racism, so that you can then "know" them. These "safe spaces" for racists are precisely why it persists. Guidebooks shouldn't be safe places for racists, misogynists or other bigots.

This is not remotely the same thing as historical racist censorship/authorship. I think you are a little confused. Its the exact problem we are trying to address.

I don't tell anyone they can't use the N-word or any other racist epitaph, just that if they do in the wrong context (ie not Black or in a Guidebook) they got some 'splaining to do at the price of my friendship/patronage/may be in for some public criticism.

I think you misinterpreted his intent.  He's not advocating for people to use racists terms. He's just saying that he'd rather know what a person is about rather than dealing with a closeted racist who smiles in your face.  I'm not sure if he doesn't trust ALL white people but, as someone who's mixed race, let's just say that I trust some of them alot less after the recent presidential election.

BTW, there are safe spaces for people to use racist language.  It's called a Trump rally.

PosiDave wrote: I’m white/native.. You have called meRacist on two opposite sides because i don’t agree with you.
Offensive things/names change over time (African American/Black name debate). 
WASP’s have used censorship/education as a way to take advantage of minorities for centuries. Uncivilized heathens need taught the “right” ways was a excuse for a lot of history. (They we’re doing natives a favor in their minds).
Telling a black person they can’t say N. Is the mansplaining of race. 

100% people should be offended by stuff and know who is racist, but demanding censorship is only good when you are on the right side. I’d rather have a racist be open to my face so I can make my call to do business with them, instead of silently promote that agenda.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/millennials-dont-fear-censorship-because-they-plan-on-doing-all-the-censoring/amp/

I’m really curious how old you are?