Climbing just gets more pathetic- we need more misfits and outcasts again

Elizabeth Heugel wrote: This hold being discontinued affects most of us literally not at all.  But for at least some people it was painful, offensive, or seen as disrespectful, so it does impact them.  When we find out some feel that way, why wouldn't we want to respect that? Most of us don't really care about that hold nor would care if it wasn't used anymore, so why is it a big deal to say "hmm didn't realize some felt that way, yeah we probably shouldn't use that one anymore"?  I don't understand why the feeling of annoyance at "sjws" or social issues always seems to be prioritized over painful or negative feelings expressed by those in non-dominant climbing groups.

I am now experiencing painful negative feelings because of your post.

Elizabeth, you've already offended two people in a matter of hours. Why do you continue to post on MP?

Franck Vee wrote:

I agree, it is not a big deal.

Let's say I had a Buddha statue at home, and someone comes up asking me to remove it because, for a reason or another, he/she was offended. I'd certainly consider doing something about that. The point is not that I want to keep some sort of right to be a jerk.  The point is that this person shares being offended (a fair point), and then I respond to that in a human way.

BUT it may just happen that we disagree on the thing.  I don't think it's completely un-reasonable to have a statue of Buddha (in your garden, or as a hold on a climbing wall). We're not talking about grabbing a swastika . It could just be that, whatever thing I felt like I wanted to express with my Buddha thingy (or the hold company or the gym or the setter), doesn't come across the same to the other person.

And yes maybe that person's "expression" is just corporate greed. But maybe it is genuine respect for that this symbols represents. Or humour. Or art. Or maybe a freaking brush with near-death, followed by a spiritual awakening. Or whatever else.

Whatever it is, why would it become the offended person's right to judge whether those motivations are justified or not?

Your example of a Buddha statue in one's home is a false equivalence. 

What many Buddhist would find offensive about a Buddha-shaped hold is that climbing holds are made to be stepped on. ​Stepping on something/someone is viewed as very disrespectful in almost every culture. ​​​

How well do you think a hold in the form of an American flag would go over?  How well do you think a hold in the form of the Star of David would go over in a climbing gym in Israel?

What would you say to a military vet who voices their protest against a hold in the form of an American flag?

What would you say to an observant Jew who is offended by a hold in the form of a the Star of David?

https://www.mountainproject.com/search?q=buddha

We need to immediately close and/or protest every one of these crags due to the offending nature of the climbs located there.  

This post violated Guideline #1 and has been removed.

Franck Vee wrote:

I agree with you - it is not.

But this cuts both ways. One can't simply assume either that the offended group's reasons/context to be offended is inherently superior to the reason of the ... ?expressing group to do whatever it is they might have done to offend. And nor can we just assume that expressing something trumps all other considerations. What I mentioned about individuals between one another also holds between communities ( that it's a human exchange between to perspective which may or not eventually yield a consensus/compromise). But then it's even less clear of a moral situation in my opinion, simply because some white climbers say (in theory in the offending party) will think we should take Buddha down with an apology at once, and also some Buddhists (in theory in the offended party) will think this is ridiculous.

So, then, what do we do? To me it seems nothing special. We can all have a point of view on the matter and hopefully arrive at some reasonable compromise from the perspective of most people. Or maybe a compromise here doesn't exist.

At any rate, "keeping" Buddha isn't right or wrong, nor is wanting it removed...

=================================

I don't mean to say that everything is always relative morally. I mean as communities & societies we have established a bunch of boundaries & consensus. In some cases a reasonable observer should probably arrive at a specific conclusion and not the other (say, slavery is wrong). But just not in all cases, imo. There is no judge - there is, or isn't, consensus... 

I understand your point about some things not being able to come to consensus.  But Whether there is consensus or not, I'd say that for some issues, we could look at them rationally (and compassionately) and draw a conclusion about whose opinions/feelings should be elevated in a given scenario.

For my confederate-flag-in-the-house example.  Maybe roommate A likes it because his great great great grandfather was a confederate soldier (idk or some other reason people feel fond over it). Maybe roommate B feels hurt and feels painful memories/reminders of racism when he sees it.  I think we could agree that while they have different feelings associated with it, that the right thing to do would be for roommate A to move the flag to his bedroom out of respect.  I dont think most of us would say its on B to get over it (at least I hope not).  And it costs A nothing to move it and A's admiration is much less significant than B's pain in that scenario.  

Another (probably weird) example, In a shared space like a gym.  If there was a super realistic hold of a mold of two breasts (maybe it's complete with shoulders and nipples for argument sake), maybe there would be disagreement over whether it's funny or offensive.  Maybe just half the women (who as a group are already a minority in most climbing gyms) feel uncomfortable by the holds and the jokes they inspire.  I think most of us could look at that rationally and would agree that even if it's only 20% of the gym feeling uncomfortable, their significant discomfort is more important than the mere amusement of the 80% (maybe I'm wrong and we wouldn't agree on that haha).  

For this, it's a religious icon.  Can we not rationally look at that and say if it offends those who actually have a religious or cultural tie to it then that is what is important?  Rather than the amusement/mere appreciation/actual indifference of the unconnected majority?  Even without consensus, I think respecting other's religions should be what is prioritized.

Marc801 C wrote: That text is from the Flag Protection Act of 1968 as a response to Vietnam War protests. The law was struck down in the SCOTUS decision of 1990 as unconstitutional.

Good thing, too. 
I was just giving an example to demonstrate that getting offended —specifically by people disrespecting symbols — isn’t a recent invention. 
It also may be a more relatable example to some folks who think it’s silly to be offended by things like this.  

lol everything and everywhere in the States appears so GD politically correct...this country is a living encyclopedia of paradoxes. 

FrankPS wrote:

We wouldn't be so dominant if you weren't so submissive.

Yes Daddy.

i work very hard to be an inclusive member of society and create an emotionally safe environment for folks i'm around but damn...

"i'm not buddist but i found a deep respect after daddys trust fund paid for me to go to the hymilayas so i could mountaineer to base camp"

I'm an ancient relic, I admit it. I tend toward simple courtesy to other users of a space that is shared.

Best, Helen

1. Elizabeth Heugel wrote: 

I understand your point about some things not being able to come to consensus.  But Whether there is consensus or not, I'd say that for some issues, we could look at them rationally (and compassionately) and draw a conclusion about whose opinions/feelings should be elevated in a given scenario.

For my confederate-flag-in-the-house example.  Maybe roommate A likes it because his great great great grandfather was a confederate soldier (idk or some other reason people feel fond over it). Maybe roommate B feels hurt and feels painful memories/reminders of racism when he sees it.  I think we could agree that while they have different feelings associated with it, that the right thing to do would be for roommate A to move the flag to his bedroom out of respect.  I dont think most of us would say its on B to get over it (at least I hope not).  And it costs A nothing to move it and A's admiration is much less significant than B's pain in that scenario.  

Another (probably weird) example, In a shared space like a gym.  If there was a super realistic hold of a mold of two breasts (maybe it's complete with shoulders and nipples for argument sake), maybe there would be disagreement over whether it's funny or offensive.  Maybe just half the women (who as a group are already a minority in most climbing gyms) feel uncomfortable by the holds and the jokes they inspire.  I think most of us could look at that rationally and would agree that even if it's only 20% of the gym feeling uncomfortable, their significant discomfort is more important than the mere amusement of the 80% (maybe I'm wrong and we wouldn't agree on that haha).  

For this, it's a religious icon.  Can we not rationally look at that and say if it offends those who actually have a religious or cultural tie to it then that is what is important?  Rather than the amusement/mere appreciation/actual indifference of the unconnected majority?  Even without consensus, I think respecting other's religions should be what is prioritized.

Why yes Elizabeth, there were breast holds...great big flesh colored, open hand slopers. Two of them lived side by side at our old gym amongst the hangboards. Really hard to hang on. They disappeared when the gym moved...sadly. 

Colonel Mustard wrote: Am I supposed to be offended by people who are offended?

Like oh my god, i am so offended now!

I imagine this whole thing started like this...

Front Desk Staff:  "Hey, what can I do for ya?"
Liz George:  "I'd like to speak to a manager"

Front Desk Staff:  "Yeah, ok.  Can I tell them what it's about?"
Liz George:  "I'm offended by one of your climbing holds."

Front Desk Staff:  "...  ...  I'm sorry, what?"
Liz George:  "I'm offended by the climbing hold on the pink route that's shaped like a fat Buddha guy."

Front Desk Staff:  "Hahaha, good one!  Ya almost got me!"
Liz George:  "I'm serious!"

Front Desk Staff:  "Seriously, FUNNY!!  Haha!"
Liz George:   "No!  Seriously!  That shit is deeply offensive because it's a religious symbol!"

Front Desk Staff:  "...  ...  ...  ...  ... OoooKaaaay, I'll get my boss..."
Liz George:  "thank you.  It's important that I bring your gym's cultural appropriation to their attention!"

Front Desk Staff:  to manager  "Hey, huh, some crazy lady wants to talk to you..."
Manager:  "About what?"

Front Desk Staff:  "Well... Apparently we have culturally appropriated the E-Grips Buddha hold, and it is deeply offensive..."
Manager:  "I hate my life...  I moved out of Boulder to get away from this shit!"

Rod Shaftmoore wrote: I imagine this whole thing started like this...

Front Desk Staff:  "Hey, what can I do for ya?"
Liz George:  "I'd like to speak to a manager"

Front Desk Staff:  "Yeah, ok.  Can I tell them what it's about?"
Liz George:  "I'm offended by one of your climbing holds."

Front Desk Staff:  "...  ...  I'm sorry, what?"
Liz George:  "I'm offended by the climbing hold on the pink route that's shaped like a fat Buddha guy."

Front Desk Staff:  "Hahaha, good one!  Ya almost got me!"
Liz George:  "I'm serious!"

Front Desk Staff:  "Seriously, FUNNY!!  Haha!"
Liz George:   "No!  Seriously!  That shit is deeply offensive because it's a religious symbol!"

Front Desk Staff:  "...  ...  ...  ...  ... OoooKaaaay, I'll get my boss..."
Liz George:  "thank you.  It's important that I bring your gym's cultural appropriation to their attention!"

Front Desk Staff:  to manager  "Hey, huh, some crazy lady wants to talk to you..."
Manager:  "About what?"

Front Desk Staff:  "Well... Apparently we have culturally appropriated the E-Grips Buddha hold, and it is deeply offensive..."
Manager:  "I hate my life...  I moved out of Boulder to get away from this shit!"

Front desk staff: how can you hate your life? Your like 24 and a climbing gym manager.

Khoi wrote:

Your example of a Buddha statue in one's home is a false equivalence. 

What many Buddhist would find offensive about a Buddha-shaped hold is that climbing holds are made to be stepped on. Stepping on something/someone is viewed as very disrespectful in almost every culture.

How well do you think a hold in the form of an American flag would go over?  How well do you think a hold in the form of the Star of David would go over in a climbing gym in Israel?

What would you say to a military vet who voices their protest against a hold in the form of an American flag?

What would you say to an observant Jew who is offended by a hold in the form of a the Star of David?

I'd say "I think you're over-reacting."

I'd think "HTFU."

And I'd also think "if you are that sensitive, maybe you should find a safer sport where you don't risk dying or seeing your best friend die in front of you."

Hmm, maybe I need to carve enough religious symbols to create a whole route of offensive holds. Make it a really hard route just to add to the aggravation of the gumbies.

Tony G wrote: Hmm, maybe I need to carve enough religious symbols to create a whole route of offensive holds. Make it a really hard route just to add to the aggravation of the gumbies.

And sandbag the rating :-)

Old lady H wrote: I'm an ancient relic, I admit it. I tend toward simple courtesy to other users of a space that is shared.

Best, Helen

I'm with you. That is what has become a lost art with the internet millenial group, no courtesy for those that give plenty of it. This is why Trump will win again, too much time spent interneting and not enough time speaking with neighbors. 

 "Yeah but i have prayer flags on my sprinter brah"

Id take a big shit on a Christian way before dumping on a Buddhist

 A Buddhist should not be offended by that there is no right or wrong things just are. To be offended is to pass judgment. And that is not a Buddhist concept. Acceptance.  

june m wrote:  A Buddhist should not be offended by that there is no right or wrong things just are. To be offended is to pass judgment. And that is not a Buddhist concept. Acceptance.  

True but one from the outside might try and correct basic manners right? I would .