What's up with Rumney Hinterlands!?

Sean Kurnas wrote:

I never said it did.

My point, again, is that you have to decide the merits on a case by case basis.  Insisting that names can't change, because they can't, doesn't solve this problem.

You don’t seem to get the point.

”what is right” and “majority rule” change by the decade/year.

If you aren’t actively hurting someone, encouraging violence against them, jeopardizing their “god given” rights. The attitude of what is being done or said changes with the times.

I appreciate the examples, and I understand what you're getting at.  But there's a difference between scrubbing someone from history, and changing the name of select climbs that are hateful.  You said yourself that you support the latter in some cases, but not the former.  If you did support changing a name, someone who didn't could accuse you of pushing us down the slope - and just like that, you're an authoritarian marxist somethingorother who wants to rename El Cap with gender neutral pronouns.  Welcome to the team!

The slippery slope rhetoric skips dealing with people's real opinions and assumes they will all participate in some hypothetical descent into madness.  And yet, with few exceptions, everyone in the community has nuanced opinions about how this should play out.  We're all better off dealing with the valid concerns of real people about specific issues, and as long as we do that, I don't think we are headed to an extreme anytime soon.

Sean Kurnas wrote:

I appreciate the examples, and I understand what you're getting at.  But there's a difference between scrubbing someone from history, and changing the name of select climbs that are hateful.  You said yourself that you support the latter in some cases, but not the former.  If you did support changing a name, someone who didn't could accuse you of pushing us down the slope - and just like that, you're an authoritarian marxist somethingorother who wants to rename El Cap with gender neutral pronouns.  Welcome to the team!

The slippery slope rhetoric skips dealing with people's real opinions and assumes they will all participate in some hypothetical descent into madness.  And yet, with few exceptions, everyone in the community has nuanced opinions about how this should play out.  We're all better off dealing with the valid concerns of real people about specific issues, and as long as we do that, I don't think we are headed to an extreme anytime soon.

I find renaming climbs pretty and stupid. People take things out of context all the time. A conservative Mormon will be offended by things different than a inner city atheist. Who gets to decide which one gets to name things. 

what if I am Offended by things and few people agree? Does that mean you have to coddle my emotions? 

I find renaming climbs pretty and stupid

That's fine.  You can keep on calling it Mt McKinley all you want - but at some point, people might genuinely not know what you're referring to.

None of these pieces of rock actually have names independent of people, you know.  The name is just whatever a group of people agree on.

Does that mean you have to coddle my emotions?

Nope.  

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. 

I'm totally in to the spirit of what you're doing. But then I go to Orange Crush to start scoping new projects and I'm like, "oye."

Guys does this mean Mark Sprague is cancelled?

reading this thread I’m left wondering which routes at Rumney or in the northeast have had their names hidden pending discussion on their offensiveness. Does anyone have a list or a link to route names that are under review that can be shared. Sorry if I missed it in the thread, but that thing is getting exhausting. To clarify, I’m not asking about the routes that MSprague has redacted.

Russell S wrote:

I'm totally in to the spirit of what you're doing. But then I go to Orange Crush to start scoping new projects and I'm like, "oye."

Time to support  ward  and buy a guidebook. Honestly  the name doesn't  matter anyhow, just climb it,  one of the climbing areas that I visited in Europe just had the grades of the routes written at the base of them.

Joey Frechette wrote:

reading this thread I’m left wondering which routes at Rumney or in the northeast have had their names hidden pending discussion on their offensiveness. Does anyone have a list or a link to route names that are under review that can be shared. Sorry if I missed it in the thread, but that thing is getting exhausting. To clarify, I’m not asking about the routes that MSprague has redacted.

Typically, the ones redacted by MP are formatted like [Redacted] and will have an "I" next to the redaction to provide more info. Anything Mark changed the name to is just Redacted (no brackets) and there is normally a disclaimer above or below it saying te route name was changed by the first ascentionist

june m wrote:

Time to support  ward  and buy a guidebook. Honestly  the name doesn't  matter anyhow, just climb it,  one of the climbing areas that I visited in Europe just had the grades of the routes written at the base of them.

It is going to make painting the names at Rumney a lot easier if they all are named Redacted. Just one stencil needed! I can color code for the grade; green up to 5.9+, red 5.10-11+, and purple for 12a and up.

M Sprague wrote:

It is going to make painting the names at Rumney a lot easier if they all are named Redacted. Just one stencil needed! I can color code for the grade; green up to 5.9+, red 5.10-11+, and purple for 12a and up.

Sounds like  a great  idea  Mark.  Then people won't  walk around  looking at their  phones. Very small under 1 inch high , people who  are red /green  color  blind are screwed.

MattWallace wrote:

Typically, the ones redacted by MP are formatted like [Redacted] and will have an "I" next to the redaction to provide more info. Anything Mark changed the name to is just Redacted (no brackets) and there is normally a disclaimer above or below it saying te route name was changed by the first ascentionist

Consulting the MP search feature, it looks like the only route with a name that's been [Redacted] in the state of NH is located at Cathedral Ledge. I don't know the story of this redaction and I haven't seen that anyone on this thread has addressed that specific situation. Are the sixty or so routes that have been named Redacted in protest are all Mark Sprague's routes at Rumney? Is the route at Cathedral one of Mark's? Given the situation it seems the slippery slope we're being warned about isn't anything near as disruptive as the backlash from one person. Am I missing something here? Maybe I'm on the wrong thread and my next questions have been answered. If so feel free to drop me a link. How many routes in the North East are actually being considered for a name change? What are the names and history of those routes? How do the FAs and others in the climbing community feel about those specific route names?

There's at least one more: the one Sprague is upset about at Owl Cliff. The search feature seems to not bring up all the redactions, but my memory from an old list of flagged routes is that very, very few were in the NE. A few got changed by the FAs, and I would guesstimate there's less than 5 stopgap redactions. Beware the slippery molehill...

You could call what's happening here an over-redaction.

Big Red wrote:

There's at least one more: the one Sprague is upset about at Owl Cliff. The search feature seems to not bring up all the redactions, but my memory from an old list of flagged routes is that very, very few were in the NE. A few got changed by the FAs, and I would guesstimate there's less than 5 stopgap redactions. Beware the slippery molehill...

Ah but don't you understand? Any change for the sake of comfort is just us liberal snowflakes changing history and DESTROYING culture.

Joey Frechette wrote:

Consulting the MP search feature, it looks like the only route with a name that's been [Redacted] in the state of NH is located at Cathedral Ledge. I don't know the story of this redaction and I haven't seen that anyone on this thread has addressed that specific situation. Are the sixty or so routes that have been named Redacted in protest are all Mark Sprague's routes at Rumney? Is the route at Cathedral one of Mark's? Given the situation it seems the slippery slope we're being warned about isn't anything near as disruptive as the backlash from one person. Am I missing something here? Maybe I'm on the wrong thread and my next questions have been answered. If so feel free to drop me a link. How many routes in the North East are actually being considered for a name change? What are the names and history of those routes? How do the FAs and others in the climbing community feel about those specific route names?

"Knights in White Satin" at Cathedral is a play on words of the names of the first ascentionists Barbara Knight and Brad White and is an extremely dirty slab climb as well as a song name... that gets redacted... and I think "Hooter's Arete" at Owl Cliff is pretty self explanatory and also gets redacted... this is ridiculous. Mark keep trying to stand up for first ascentionists. 

I understand Mark's reason for protest, and I think it is a reasonable cause, many names that are not offensive in any real way have been redacted because of a misinterpretation, but I think this is an entirely ineffective protest that does more harm then good. While it is regrettable and unfortunate that a few innocent routes were renamed, the progress and positive results of this movement far outweighs the feelings of first ascensionists of a couple dirty 1 star routes. This protest is ineffective because it lack the nuance to clarify that the issue is merely with innocent route names and not route renaming as an institution. It sends the complete wrong message to the climbing community and everyone that doesn't have the time to go rooting through the forums to find the lengthy explanation. 

There is also "Revolt of the dike brigade" at Whitehorse ledge (just found out last weekend while climbing there).

proto G wrote:

There is also "Revolt of the dike brigade" at Whitehorse ledge (just found out last weekend while climbing there).

This is where the massive inconsistency of this quest to cleanse route names really shows. This name is redacted, presumably because of an LGBTQ slur (despite it being a geologic term), yet right next to it is the unredacted "Reign of Dykes".

For the unaware: Wiki says....

The term dyke is a slang term, used as a noun meaning lesbian and as an adjective describing things associated with lesbianism. It originated as a homophobic and misogynistic slur for a masculine, butch, or androgynous girl or woman.

Marc801 C wrote:

This is where the massive inconsistency of this quest to cleanse route names really shows. 

Once again, if you read Nick's posts, this is a stop-gap measure until the policy is released. Arguing or getting upset over individual errors in the application of a quick and dirty pass is pointless.