What's up with Rumney Hinterlands!?

proto G wrote:

don't forget that thread about the Gunks ... the App and guidbook are doing just the same!

Which printed guidebook is doing the same?

The app creators are working with a few others to make a guidebook that should be published soon.  

As I posted on the Gunks thread, I did soften up a couple of names in the Rumney guide.  I'm generally against censorship, but the increasing number of children taking up climbing makes names like f-ing the dog inappropriate.  I do agree with Al that it is a slippery slope.  I think that reasonable people can agree that there are clearly some offensive names, but there will be a grey area that will lead to full on cancel culture if anyone who is offended by anything can determine which names are redacted.  Ward 

Ward Smith wrote:

 I think that reasonable people can agree that there are clearly some offensive names, but there will be a grey area that will lead to full on cancel culture if anyone who is offended by anything can determine which names are redacted.  Ward 

I agree. Let's have that conversation if the pendulum swings far enough in the other direction and the status quo becomes wide-spread cancel culture. As I've said to Sprague, a handful of questionably unoffensive route names redacted out of the 227,000 on MP is hardly the Orwellian censorship state that some people seem to be so afraid of.

Sean Kurnas wrote:

Isn't that question the whole point of the discussion?

Almost everyone agrees that there is a line.  That's what makes the slippery slope rhetoric so aggravating; it applies just as much to your line as it does to another's.

I agree there is a line. But it is different for everyone and I don’t believe in censoring anyone’s stuff. If a FA wants ties to a racist or uninviting name, I actually think it just goes to show their true personality and makes everyone aware.

I don’t agree with a lot of things, but I also know that is life and shouldn’t let a name upset me.

Insert name wrote:

If a FA wants ties to a racist or uninviting name, I actually think it just goes to show their true personality and makes everyone aware.

I don’t agree with a lot of things, but I also know that is life and shouldn’t let a name upset me.

So if someone puts up a climb with a racist name, am I obligated to use that name?  Am I obligated to refer to the climb by that name when I discuss it with my friends or add it to my tick list?  If I refuse to do so, am I censoring them?

What if all my friends and I, constituting the majority of a community of climbers in the area, decide we don't like the name (but like the climb) and want to rename it to something that isn't awful.  Who has the right to tell us we can't do that?

Insert name wrote:

Just because you find a reason to be offended by your interpretation of words doesn’t mean you should get to censor them.

Can a Mormon finding offense in a climb named “brass monkey” mean we should censor any name referring to drugs,alcohol or sex outside of marriage? Where is the line drawn?

You guys are talking past each other.

Ron wrote,
"But if a group of people see the name as uncomfortable, does it matter the original intention?"

Being uncomfortable and being offended are different things. One is the ego asserting itself, the other is a kind of defeat, characterized by isolation and vulnerability.

Part of the problem here is that those who feel uncomfortable have a tendency to stay silent, while those who take offense are loud and obnoxious (but maybe open the door for those who are uncomfortable to speak up). The latter don't erase the presence of the former, they just obscure it and erode sympathy for the former.

Insert name,
Are you indifferent to making people uncomfortable, or are you simply indifferent to offending people? If changing route names would result in more people climbing, who otherwise might not, would you embrace it?

• I have tried to step away from this discussion but I just can't ignore Bogdan's absurd and extremely racist distinction between 'offensive' and 'uncomfortable'--there is a distinction but not the one s/he describes. Only white people are "powerful" enough to be offended--come on!!!!

Alan Rubin wrote:

• I have tried to step away from this discussion but I just can't ignore Bogdan's absurd and extremely racist distinction between 'offensive' and 'uncomfortable'--there is a distinction but not the one s/he describes. Only white people are "powerful" enough to be offended--come on!!!!

Ya, I'm not entirely sure how to describe the distinction. I'm grasping at straws a bit, although I was still working on it in an edit window during your reply (haven't changed it since seeing your reply though). That said, I didn't mean it as a totalizing statement. Obviously lots of people can take offense (not be offended, there's a difference; taking offense requires saying something about it, and that requires that you're someone who's voice is heard, hence the idea about having some power to begin with).

Anyway. What I was trying to get at was find what might underlie the seemingly irreconcilable differences between the opposing perspectives on route renaming. What I was hoping was that maybe there's a way to bring them together to get people to talk with each other rather than at each other. But it sounds like you think you'd be better able to accomplish that, so please, be my guest.

You edited your original message to take out the offensive part, but you originally wrote that only "wealthy white people" were powerful enough to be offended. That is both ridiculous and racist by it's very words. Obviously you have now recognized that but don't pretend that you never wrote it.

Alan Rubin wrote:

You edited your original message to take out the offensive part, but you originally wrote that only "wealthy white people" were powerful enough to be offended. That is both ridiculous and racist by it's very words. Obviously you have now recognized that but don't pretend that you never wrote it.

I don't deny I initially characterized those who take offense as "wealthy white people", but as stated, I didn't mean it in a totalizing way. First drafts often don't do the best job of expressing an idea, hence why I was still working on it when you replied. Seems like you'd like to hold me accountable for it though. How would you like me to do penance for my crime?

"First drafts" -- yes but you pressed enter.   Anyway the new thing is, white guys have no right to an opinion.

This whole idea of the first ascentionist as god-emperor whose word and vision are absolute is so damn stupid. Climbing is a community and decisions have always been made by consensus, as they're meant to serve that community, not the first ascentionist. In 99% of cases, the consensus is to honor the FA due to the value they've provided the climbing community by installing the route. However, whether it's chopping bolts at a trad area, changing bolts on a mis-bolted climb, or using a name that's better than the FA (whether for offensive reasons or not), the community has always held some ability and willingness to exercise veto power over the first ascentionist. 

I for one am glad that there's not a crag whose names are all 9/11 truther website urls (as someone attempted to do at the RRG, though it was vetoed by the guidebook author), even though I'm not offended by them. Don't like that the guidebook author, or the community itself, is changing your route names? Write your own guidebook or mountainproject-esque site and see how much value people put in using your chosen route names. Marketplace of ideas, eh?

Sean Kurnas wrote:

So if someone puts up a climb with a racist name, am I obligated to use that name?  Am I obligated to refer to the climb by that name when I discuss it with my friends or add it to my tick list?  If I refuse to do so, am I censoring them?

What if all my friends and I, constituting the majority of a community of climbers in the area, decide we don't like the name (but like the climb) and want to rename it to something that isn't awful.  Who has the right to tell us we can't do that?

 you're not obliged to use any name that you don't like you can call it the climb to the left of soft and fuzzy or you can give it your own name like snowflakes Delight or you can call it the face climb with 6 bolts and the Crux near the top

There was another thread where someone suggested a personal settings flag where you could decide if you wanted to see the redacted / original names by default or using the default settings (i.e. see "redacted" as name and/or updated name). Maybe that is not such a bad idea. If so I think you should opt in (to change default) but that is a separate discussion. (sarcasm: or even pay for MP Pro to enable this feature :)

Bryce Adamson wrote:

Half the names have been changed to "Redacted." Is this someone's protest? Redacted names include such offensive gems as "Giant Man," "Cold Feet," "Hinterland's Highway" etc. It doesn't appear that these names have been redacted by MP. Apparently the names have actually been changed in the system by a user, though not all the routes have the same OP.

As I discussed in the Administrator's forum, silly as it may seam to some of you, it is a small temporary pushback protest in solidarity with those who are wrongfully having their route names changed and the absurd notion that intent doesn't matter and is trumped by somebody making something up in their own mind to to be "offended" about. It seemed to me that names were being redacted with very little attempt to actually find out why routes had particular names. In doing so, it essentially labels a route author as an asshole who is so bad their expressions have to be silenced. It is not against the changing of legitimately strongly offensive content, rather against mob mentality.

I can explain more, but frankly I am burnt out talking about the subject atm and have to get ready for the weekend, so I'll have to get back to you. The main point is not to assume the worst in others and recognize that maybe you just don't understand a name. The principle goes beyond route names and is important for society. 

Bryce Adamson wrote:

Half the names have been changed to "Redacted." Is this someone's protest? Redacted names include such offensive gems as "Giant Man," "Cold Feet," "Hinterland's Highway" etc. It doesn't appear that these names have been redacted by MP. Apparently the names have actually been changed in the system by a user, though not all the routes have the same OP.

Lolll and just to think, Bryce - just three days before you wrote this post, you casually laughed off my concerns about rampant censorship of not-very-offensive route names.... why the sudden change of heart?

M Sprague wrote:

As I discussed in the Administrator's forum, silly as it may seam to some of you, it is a small temporary pushback protest in solidarity with those who are wrongfully having their route names changed and the absurd notion that intent doesn't matter and is trumped by somebody making something up in their own mind to to be "offended" about. It seemed to me that names were being redacted with very little attempt to actually find out why routes had particular names. In doing so, it essentially labels a route author as an asshole who is so bad their expressions have to be silenced. It is not against the changing of legitimately strongly offensive content, rather against mob mentality.

I can explain more, but frankly I am burnt out talking about the subject atm and have to get ready for the weekend, so I'll have to get back to you. The main point is not to assume the worst in others and recognize that maybe you just don't understand a name. The principle goes beyond route names and is important for society.

Man, what an unbelievably bad and revealing take.

I know this will be hard for your ego to handle, but the majority of climbers who climb your route don’t care about you as the FA. They don’t and won’t know of you. I’m not providing a value judgment on whether that is good or not, it’s just fact.

The idea that you think the changing of route names has anything to do with a character judgment of the FA is so hilarious as to almost come off as parody. Assuming you’re serious, let me say: this isn’t about you, this isn’t about me or any one person. It’s about having the kind of community that makes the largest number of people possible feel comfortable. How is this complicated? Are you really so fragile and self obsessed as to think the feelings of the FA trump those of the majority of folks touching the rock?

Look... I know the only thing that makes you (an apparently unashamed narcissist) feel good is stroking one out to your list of FAs with the names unredacted. I get that. But the fact is it’s embarrassing, and it’s making us all look bad. So go and off and do it quietly in the corner where no one can see or hear you. 

Cropey Slimp wrote:

Man, what an unbelievably bad and revealing take.

I know this will be hard for your ego to handle, but the majority of climbers who climb your route don’t care about you as the FA. They don’t and won’t know of you. I’m not providing a value judgment on whether that is good or not, it’s just fact.

The idea that you think the changing of route names has anything to do with a character judgment of the FA is so hilarious as to almost come off as parody. Assuming you’re serious, let me say: this isn’t about you, this isn’t about me or any one person. It’s about having the kind of community that makes the largest number of people possible feel comfortable. How is this complicated? Are you really so fragile and self obsessed as to think the feelings of the FA trump those of the majority of folks touching the rock?

Look... I know the only thing that makes you (an apparently unashamed narcissist) feel good is stroking one out to your list of FAs with the names unredacted. I get that. But the fact is it’s embarrassing, and it’s making us all look bad. So go and off and do it quietly in the corner where no one can see or hear you. 

Unlike the target of your criticism, i'm still entertained enough to comment on this conversation.

I'm only one person, but I see route names as a reflection of the FA. Depending on the name I will judge the person responsible for it and the community they come from. When I climb at Ten Sleep for instance and I see a place called "Slavery Wall", that definitely tells me something about the local climbing community. I don't judge it in isolation. Wyoming is a very white place (granted, also has an unusually large native population), with no history of slavery, which means I judge it differently than former slave states with significant populations descended from enslaved people. I'm more likely for instance to consider it a reference to being enslaved to your project than enslaved to another human being than if it were say in the old south, but it still tells me something about the sensitivities and insensitivity of the local community.

That said,

"It’s about having the kind of community that makes the largest number of people possible feel comfortable."

You're taking it for granted that there's a larger "climbing community" that desires to grow itself. Make the case for that, and be a member of said community. Most "climbing communities" are local, often confined to a single crag or gym, and often clickish, while to the extent to which a wider "climbing community" exists that community strikes me as a conglomerate of facebook groups one the hand and of commercial initiatives on the other (publications, corporate sponsorship, industry conventions, etc.), not a community bound by common experiences and relations.

"How is this complicated?"? That's how.

Within one community a name is funny. Within another it's offensive. The lack of bridges prevents reconciliation. Tossing insults ("narcisisst") and advocating for banishment ('go off and do it in a corner where no one can see or hear you') looks like tribal strife, not community. You can't advocate on behalf of community while at the same time sowing the seeds that fragment it.

Corey I find your post extremely and unnecessarily hostile. It also strikes me as a completely uncharitable interpretation of what Mark is saying.

It's possible for someone to have concerns about renaming routes - and in this case, more specifically, about the specific mechanism that allows for then to be flagged - without being a narcissist.  

Believe it or not, the people who developed the routes, trails, and access for climbing areas DO have a say in what happens to them.  I'm not sure how the community benefits from insulting or shouting down anyone the way you are doing here.