Free Solo and Terra Incognita

Tradiban wrote:

This woman is just on the opposite side of the spectrum from Trump.

I love it.

How could you love any of that article? It's complete brainless garbage from the Left. #snowflake

Daniel Melnyk wrote:

How could you love any of that article? It's complete brainless garbage from the Left. #snowflake

Are you an American or an American"t?

Mediocre White girl from Portland, OR who writes for a living bashing peoples accomplishments and then talking about the theft of native lands as part of her arguement. 

I don’t ride the free solo groupie train and the mainstream fame sorta killed it for me. But, Soloing El cap is a monumental accomplishment.

This article is some peak "woke" white girl shit. (I'm white and a girl so I can say it.) It is also proof that being "woke" doesn't keep you from being a bigoted ass hat. She knows absolutely nothing about autism, but has no problem tossing out some tired old stereotypes. Ok - now I've vented, I will put on my academic hat and treat this as I would an article I received for peer review.

The piece does raise some good points. Increasing awareness of the issues facing Native/First Nations communities is important, as is dealing with abusive behavior, and representations of toxic masculinity. However, there are about 3 different arguments running through the piece. By mashing the arguments together, the author has  diluted the power of her arguments. In addition, the snide and frequently self-righteous tone which the author is using is not persuasive, impacts the readability of the piece and undercuts the author's arguments. In addition, the author appears to be conflating Alex Honnold, the person, with Alex Honnold, the character in the film. Documentary filmmaking puts together hours upon hours of film into a story. The filmmakers are crafting an interesting character who will keep people watching. The author needs to make this distinction clear. In addition, the author might want to do some research on autism before she writes about it. For example, the term Aspergers is no longer used. It has been incorporated into the autism spectrum. Peer review over. ;-)

There are two aspects of the piece that infuriate me. First, I am autistic and so is my kid. We understand autism as an identity - a neurological difference, not a disease. The bullshit that the author is promulgating about autism is infuriating. First, autism (Aspergers's is no longer a diagnosis since the latest version of the DSM.) is not as she calls it a "mental illness" or excuse for bad behavior. It is a "developmental disorder" (I don't like the term.) which is characterized by difficulties in understanding social interactions, high levels of anxiety, issues with sensory integration, and problems with eye contact. People who are autistic may behave in ways that others find odd. For example, for many autistic people making eye contact is painful. It is just too much sensory (and for me, emotional) input. Sometimes, interactions with people are overwhelming and I'm sure at those moments I come across like an asshole. It isn't intentional and I'm not trying to hurt anyone. Interacting with others is a process of watching, trying to understand their behaviors and learning.

Second, Intersectionality is a key part of my research. The author of the piece namedrops theorists such as bell hooks, but only seems to have a cursory understanding of their theories. The concept of intersectionality asks us to take a look at positionality. How does my whiteness, being a woman, being autistic ... impact the way that I interact with the world? How does it influence the social structures which I face and the ways in which I interact with those structures? hooks' understanding of masculinity is not oppositional or as angry in the way that the author of the article implies. hooks approaches her critique from a position of love. For example, Feminism is for Everybody (read page ix in the introduction).

Deirdre wrote: This article is some peak "woke" white girl shit. (I'm white and a girl so I can say it.) It is also proof that being "woke" doesn't keep you from being a bigoted ass hat. She knows absolutely nothing about autism, but has no problem tossing out some tired old stereotypes. Ok - now I've vented, I will put on my academic hat and treat this as I would an article I received for peer review.

The piece does raise some good points. Increasing awareness of the issues facing Native/First Nations communities is important, as is dealing with abusive behavior, and representations of toxic masculinity. However, there are about 3 different arguments running through the piece. By mashing the arguments together, the author has  diluted the power of her arguments. In addition, the snide and frequently self-righteous tone which the author is using is not persuasive, impacts the readability of the piece and undercuts the author's arguments. In addition, the author appears to be conflating Alex Honnold, the person, with Alex Honnold, the character in the film. Documentary filmmaking puts together hours upon hours of film into a story. The filmmakers are crafting an interesting character who will keep people watching. The author needs to make this distinction clear. In addition, the author might want to do some research on autism before she writes about it. For example, the term Aspergers is no longer used. It has been incorporated into the autism spectrum. Peer review over. ;-)

There are two aspects of the piece that infuriate me. First, I am autistic and so is my kid. We understand autism as an identity - a neurological difference, not a disease. The bullshit that the author is promulgating about autism is infuriating. First, autism (Aspergers's is no longer a diagnosis since the latest version of the DSM.) is not as she calls it a "mental illness" or excuse for bad behavior. It is a "developmental disorder" (I don't like the term.) which is characterized by difficulties in understanding social interactions, high levels of anxiety, issues with sensory integration, and problems with eye contact. People who are autistic may behave in ways that others find odd. For example, for many autistic people making eye contact is painful. It is just too much sensory (and for me, emotional) input. Sometimes, interactions with people are overwhelming and I'm sure at those moments I come across like an asshole. It isn't intentional and I'm not trying to hurt anyone. Interacting with others is a process of watching, trying to understand their behaviors and learning.

Second, Intersectionality is a key part of my research. The author of the piece namedrops theorists such as bell hooks, but only seems to have a cursory understanding of their theories. The concept of intersectionality asks us to take a look at positionality. How does my whiteness, being a woman, being autistic ... impact the way that I interact with the world? How does it influence the social structures which I face and the ways in which I interact with those structures? hooks' understanding of masculinity is not oppositional or as angry in the way that the author of the article implies. hooks approaches her critique from a position of love. For example, Feminism is for Everybody (read page ix in the introduction).

Coming from someone who has met Erin many times, this has to be the most well written and needed statement in this forum that she needs to read. She’s not a bad person. She just needs to fact check her own statements before writing them and fill her passion with love first, not aggression.Thank you for saying it.

John Long nails it I think in this Facebook comment.

“The least effective way to educate is through shame and blame. While there are facile truths in her drift, they often get lost or lessened through vague analogies and sloppy generalizing. Plus you can't shoot all of your arrows - some totally unrelated - at one target and hold any kind of focus and coherence. Important issues, but structurally and thematically flawed. Ranting and crucifying is a social media virus that slays true objectivity, despite the faux objective tone. But stirring to pot is the point of these rambling "articles." Too bad, because the topic is important.”

I wonder if the editor had to remove all the "clap" emojis between each word when she submitted the article.

Joe Auer wrote: I wonder if the editor had to remove all the "clap" emojis between each word when she submitted the article.

nice one!

But can she free solo el cap?  

Deirdre wrote: This article is some peak "woke" white girl shit. (I'm white and a girl so I can say it.) It is also proof that being "woke" doesn't keep you from being a bigoted ass hat. She knows absolutely nothing about autism, but has no problem tossing out some tired old stereotypes. Ok - now I've vented, I will put on my academic hat and treat this as I would an article I received for peer review.

The piece does raise some good points. Increasing awareness of the issues facing Native/First Nations communities is important, as is dealing with abusive behavior, and representations of toxic masculinity. However, there are about 3 different arguments running through the piece. By mashing the arguments together, the author has  diluted the power of her arguments. In addition, the snide and frequently self-righteous tone which the author is using is not persuasive, impacts the readability of the piece and undercuts the author's arguments. In addition, the author appears to be conflating Alex Honnold, the person, with Alex Honnold, the character in the film. Documentary filmmaking puts together hours upon hours of film into a story. The filmmakers are crafting an interesting character who will keep people watching. The author needs to make this distinction clear. In addition, the author might want to do some research on autism before she writes about it. For example, the term Aspergers is no longer used. It has been incorporated into the autism spectrum. Peer review over. ;-)

There are two aspects of the piece that infuriate me. First, I am autistic and so is my kid. We understand autism as an identity - a neurological difference, not a disease. The bullshit that the author is promulgating about autism is infuriating. First, autism (Aspergers's is no longer a diagnosis since the latest version of the DSM.) is not as she calls it a "mental illness" or excuse for bad behavior. It is a "developmental disorder" (I don't like the term.) which is characterized by difficulties in understanding social interactions, high levels of anxiety, issues with sensory integration, and problems with eye contact. People who are autistic may behave in ways that others find odd. For example, for many autistic people making eye contact is painful. It is just too much sensory (and for me, emotional) input. Sometimes, interactions with people are overwhelming and I'm sure at those moments I come across like an asshole. It isn't intentional and I'm not trying to hurt anyone. Interacting with others is a process of watching, trying to understand their behaviors and learning.

Second, Intersectionality is a key part of my research. The author of the piece namedrops theorists such as bell hooks, but only seems to have a cursory understanding of their theories. The concept of intersectionality asks us to take a look at positionality. How does my whiteness, being a woman, being autistic ... impact the way that I interact with the world? How does it influence the social structures which I face and the ways in which I interact with those structures? hooks' understanding of masculinity is not oppositional or as angry in the way that the author of the article implies. hooks approaches her critique from a position of love. For example, Feminism is for Everybody (read page ix in the introduction).

Holy shite!  THIS is an amazing reply and critique.

I am more intelligent and way better informed after having read this than I was before.

Thank you for that!  Well done!

Deirdre wrote: This article is some peak "woke" white girl shit. (I'm white and a girl so I can say it.) It is also proof that being "woke" doesn't keep you from being a bigoted ass hat. She knows absolutely nothing about autism, but has no problem tossing out some tired old stereotypes. Ok - now I've vented, I will put on my academic hat and treat this as I would an article I received for peer review.

The piece does raise some good points. Increasing awareness of the issues facing Native/First Nations communities is important, as is dealing with abusive behavior, and representations of toxic masculinity. However, there are about 3 different arguments running through the piece. By mashing the arguments together, the author has  diluted the power of her arguments. In addition, the snide and frequently self-righteous tone which the author is using is not persuasive, impacts the readability of the piece and undercuts the author's arguments. In addition, the author appears to be conflating Alex Honnold, the person, with Alex Honnold, the character in the film. Documentary filmmaking puts together hours upon hours of film into a story. The filmmakers are crafting an interesting character who will keep people watching. The author needs to make this distinction clear. In addition, the author might want to do some research on autism before she writes about it. For example, the term Aspergers is no longer used. It has been incorporated into the autism spectrum. Peer review over. ;-)

There are two aspects of the piece that infuriate me. First, I am autistic and so is my kid. We understand autism as an identity - a neurological difference, not a disease. The bullshit that the author is promulgating about autism is infuriating. First, autism (Aspergers's is no longer a diagnosis since the latest version of the DSM.) is not as she calls it a "mental illness" or excuse for bad behavior. It is a "developmental disorder" (I don't like the term.) which is characterized by difficulties in understanding social interactions, high levels of anxiety, issues with sensory integration, and problems with eye contact. People who are autistic may behave in ways that others find odd. For example, for many autistic people making eye contact is painful. It is just too much sensory (and for me, emotional) input. Sometimes, interactions with people are overwhelming and I'm sure at those moments I come across like an asshole. It isn't intentional and I'm not trying to hurt anyone. Interacting with others is a process of watching, trying to understand their behaviors and learning.

Second, Intersectionality is a key part of my research. The author of the piece namedrops theorists such as bell hooks, but only seems to have a cursory understanding of their theories. The concept of intersectionality asks us to take a look at positionality. How does my whiteness, being a woman, being autistic ... impact the way that I interact with the world? How does it influence the social structures which I face and the ways in which I interact with those structures? hooks' understanding of masculinity is not oppositional or as angry in the way that the author of the article implies. hooks approaches her critique from a position of love. For example, Feminism is for Everybody (read page ix in the introduction).

Thank you Deidre, well said!

My new hobby is to find literally any article on any subject, and ask why it doesn't mention indigenous peoples.  "Great analysis on nuclear physics, Mr. Einstein, but you're imperialistically leaving out the perspective of the Washoe people!  Don't you know they used to own this land?"

Oh, and there's a huge wealth of historical analysis on primitivism, golden age mythology, turn of the century outdoor rec, cultural construction of "wilderness," Theodore Roosevelt, and the search for "barbarian virtues" in the outdoors of an industrializing and imperializing United States that could really strengthen any argument that this Moynihan character is trying to make, but that would involve her actually reading something instead of just polemically running her mouth.

Deirdre wrote: This article is some peak "woke" white girl shit. (I'm white and a girl so I can say it.) It is also proof that being "woke" doesn't keep you from being a bigoted ass hat. She knows absolutely nothing about autism, but has no problem tossing out some tired old stereotypes. Ok - now I've vented, I will put on my academic hat and treat this as I would an article I received for peer review.

The piece does raise some good points. Increasing awareness of the issues facing Native/First Nations communities is important, as is dealing with abusive behavior, and representations of toxic masculinity. However, there are about 3 different arguments running through the piece. By mashing the arguments together, the author has  diluted the power of her arguments. In addition, the snide and frequently self-righteous tone which the author is using is not persuasive, impacts the readability of the piece and undercuts the author's arguments. In addition, the author appears to be conflating Alex Honnold, the person, with Alex Honnold, the character in the film. Documentary filmmaking puts together hours upon hours of film into a story. The filmmakers are crafting an interesting character who will keep people watching. The author needs to make this distinction clear. In addition, the author might want to do some research on autism before she writes about it. For example, the term Aspergers is no longer used. It has been incorporated into the autism spectrum. Peer review over. ;-)

There are two aspects of the piece that infuriate me. First, I am autistic and so is my kid. We understand autism as an identity - a neurological difference, not a disease. The bullshit that the author is promulgating about autism is infuriating. First, autism (Aspergers's is no longer a diagnosis since the latest version of the DSM.) is not as she calls it a "mental illness" or excuse for bad behavior. It is a "developmental disorder" (I don't like the term.) which is characterized by difficulties in understanding social interactions, high levels of anxiety, issues with sensory integration, and problems with eye contact. People who are autistic may behave in ways that others find odd. For example, for many autistic people making eye contact is painful. It is just too much sensory (and for me, emotional) input. Sometimes, interactions with people are overwhelming and I'm sure at those moments I come across like an asshole. It isn't intentional and I'm not trying to hurt anyone. Interacting with others is a process of watching, trying to understand their behaviors and learning.

Second, Intersectionality is a key part of my research. The author of the piece namedrops theorists such as bell hooks, but only seems to have a cursory understanding of their theories. The concept of intersectionality asks us to take a look at positionality. How does my whiteness, being a woman, being autistic ... impact the way that I interact with the world? How does it influence the social structures which I face and the ways in which I interact with those structures? hooks' understanding of masculinity is not oppositional or as angry in the way that the author of the article implies. hooks approaches her critique from a position of love. For example, Feminism is for Everybody (read page ix in the introduction).

Thank you!  Erin (and Georgie Abel to a degree) try to drop points of intellectualism, academic research, and structured analysis in their writing, but their execution pretty much says "dropped out of the first semester of my humanities grad program."

(edit: to be fair, two of her three references to "Aspergers" were quotes from other folks whom she was criticizing.)

There was another deleted picture that said "douchebag" instead of eco-jock.  And calling Tommy Caldwell, Jimmy Chin, and Mikey Schaefer "fuccbois"?  What a class act this woman is.  

She has tallied quite a bit of the knee jerk outrage here and on the Taco. Shine on, you psychotic diamond!

Vas Carmicheal wrote: I THINK THAT HER USE OF THE LATIN WORDS FOR THE TITLE OF HER BLOG, "TERRA INCOGNITA" IS INCREDIBLY INSENSITIVE. SHE HAS NO REGARD FOR THE COUNTLESS PEOPLE THAT DIED IN ALEXANDER THE GREAT'S SPREADING OF "HELLENISM" THAT NOW ALLOW HER TO USE THOSE LATIN WORDS TODAY.

Hellenistic culture spread Greek, not Latin, btw

That article is an exercise in mental gymnastics.

I haven’t read more of her article than quoted here, I did however peruse her personal instagram and the amount of selfies is all I need to determine how much of a waste of time hearing her thoughts will be

Terrain cognita - i.e., we've all been here before ...

Props to Brendan. He brought it to my attention. Still, I've been disgusted with some of the garbage academia has published in the last decade.