What's up with Rumney Hinterlands!?

The mental acrobatics and effort that's gone into raging against a handful of "non-offensive" routes getting redacted on here is impressive. I sure am glad that those oppressed and marginalized FAs have these valiant defenders of their characters and intentions, else they might feel hurt that someone thinks they are jerks. I would love to see the same effort from everyone claiming they're "totally on board with censoring egregious names" going into ensuring equitable access to the outdoors for everyone. Perhaps you can lobby your LCO or donate to groups doing good work in that direction instead of relentlessly fighting to get "Hooter's Arete" and "Knights in White Satin" back on MP? 

You're all so afraid of slippery slopes and paved roads that you forget how similar you sound to the opposition against changing racist, misogynistic, and homophobic media and labels in the past 70 years.

Big Redwrote:

The mental acrobatics and effort that's gone into raging against a handful of "non-offensive" routes getting redacted on here is impressive. I sure am glad that those oppressed and marginalized FAs have these valiant defenders of their characters and intentions, else they might feel hurt that someone thinks they are jerks. I would love to see the same effort from everyone claiming they're "totally on board with censoring egregious names" going into ensuring equitable access to the outdoors for everyone. Perhaps you can lobby your LCO or donate to groups doing good work in that direction instead of relentlessly fighting to get "Hooter's Arete" and "Knights in White Satin" back on MP? 

You're all so afraid of slippery slopes and paved roads that you forget how similar you sound to the opposition against changing racist, misogynistic, and homophobic media and labels in the past 70 years.

So you can’t criticize both sides these days? It’s ironic that in opposing racism and homophobia you actually became the bland censorship happy people that you hate (but you do it in the name of progress)

Changing vague route names in N.H. to “rainbow unicorns farts and butterfly kisses” doesn’t actually solve racism or homophobia. 

Go spend your money in a minority community in their businesses, go to a community and volunteer in something that actually helps the kids who’s families don’t have enough money to travel to Rumney and see you “fought viciously“ to get rid of silly names that actually were talking about animals.

Pretty sure not a single one of my minority family members/friends give a shit about a climb called hooters Arete. But they do care that gentrification forced them from their homes (Asbury Park, NJ) and are now vacation rentals for yuppies from NYC. They are out priced from the community they grew up in and have moved to a much nicer and better city (Trenton, NJ). But how could that cycle continue when you changed a name that 2 black people Would have read In their lifetime?

Go spend a few years as a EMT dragging your dead friends/neighbors out of their rundown houses in poverty stricken communities. Including your Best friends mothers lifeless corpse (Crack overdose) from her bedroom only to go carry his body out 4 days later from a self inflected gunshot wound. and let me know how your censorship of climbs didn’t just create a safe space where you can pretend the world is perfect while completely ignoring real problems.

I can think of 1000 ways to change the world for the better and being a SJW who took down Hooters arete isnt one of them. But whatever helps you feel accomplished I guess.

Insert namewrote:

I can think of 1000 ways to change the world for the better and being a SJW who took down Hooters arete isnt one of them. But whatever helps you feel accomplished I guess.

Similar, I can think of 1000 better ways to spend your time than fighting change that some marginalized people are asking for and have initiated. This is an initiative to listen to climbers who are already out at the crags and don't want to encounter shitty names. Doing all of the things you listed doesn't mean you can't also listen to people on the comparatively minor issues like route names. But sure, let's all venerate the valiant FA who takes the time to go through his entries on MP and bomb them. Whatever helps you feel like you've defended climbing against "radical sjws".

I think the debate Big Red is whether or not the names are actually shitty.  I've never been to a Hooters restaurant, and always thought that the name was stupid.  But I did put up Hooters Arete at the Owl Cliff, which to me seems vastly different than putting up Hooters Arete next to Show Me Your Tits at the Owen's River Gorge.  A lack of consideration of the intent and context of the route names is what people are objecting to, not redacting truly offensive names.  Ward 

There is a handful of truly  offensive names out there. No one has a problem changing them.  The majority of the names being changed are simply the result of people with too much time on their hands looking for something to be offended by. 

Ward Smithwrote:

I think the debate Big Red is whether or not the names are actually shitty. 

Honestly, I don't think that's the actual debate - if it were, you could present your reasoning for why Hooters Arete should be un-redacted during the next round of reviews and wait for a resolution in a few months. Or just wait for the next reviews and handle the remaining redactions you disagree with on a case-by-case basis. Surely a handful of routes redacted for a few months isn't going to bother you or anyone using MP? I also disagree with some redactions and some left unredacted, but I don't post about it because I trust that the process will get better with time. Or if you disagree with the premise of the process entirely, then feel free to not use MP and keep your names in your logbooks.

People here seem to think that some names are "clearly" offensive and don't merit debate and some are clearly unoffensive - I would encourage you to reflect on why you think that your opinion on the location of that blurry line is any more valid than the climbers who are encouraging change. Because you have been climbing longer? Because you put up routes? Please clearly define the gate that you think someone must pass through to have their voice heard.

I think the actual debate is people who are used to having no repercussions for their words suddenly having to take into account other people's voices. The folks up in arms in these threads are defending the character of FAs (which was never called into question), presenting false equivalency to oppressive censorship states, hand-wringing about extremist sjws, and catastrophizing about slippery slopes and paved roads to hell. None of that has to do with the actual names.

Big Redwrote:

I think the actual debate is people who are used to having no repercussions for their words suddenly having to take into account other people's voices. 

Well I have put up tons of routes and boulder problems, and have always tried to take into account what other people would think about my names, so you are way off base on that one for me anyway.

SinRopa wrote:

Your analogy makes it sound like all the pure-hearted FAs were somehow complicit in the process that gave terrible names to other climbs, which isn't the case.

We can go around and around here...maybe analogies aren't the right way to look at this one.  All I'm saying is that while I can get behind taking action against the worst of the worst of names, I don't agree with a process that sweeps up a bunch of normal ones in the process.  Seems hasty, ill-conceived, and needlessly divisive.

With regard to your above comment that "it's obviously absolutely fine to name a route after a dike in regards to the actual rock, I think it's pretty clear this was a play on words with the slur, especially with that route right next to it that straight up says the slur," I think Marc is pointing out that the play on words is redacted, while the actual slur isn't, which doesn't make any sense at all.  How can the play on words be more offensive than the actual bad word itself?  It'd be like redacting a word that rhymes with the N-word, but letting the N-word stand.  

Damn, another analogy.  That one is pretty similar though.

While I do think that the names that are only a little bad do help to normalize the idea of offensive route names, I agree they're not that bad, and I've certainly seen some that I would agree are fine. the greater issue to me is that this whole thing feels like a massive dog whistle to shift the focus away from  the actual progress being made, and while I get that it's a big problem for some people I just don't think it compares. I've said this before but I think it's worth pointing out, that the people advocating for the change of route names are often viewed as the sensitive reactionaries who get so offended and sensitive about little unimportant things. But as soon as a few obscure climbs that have names that are *only a little bit* offensive get changed, it's all the "facts don't care about your feelings" hardmen that come into the forums complaining and getting triggered. It just seriously doesn't add up. People can call a route whatever they like, but we (as a website I guess) don't have to tolerate it and promote it. I do hope that all the innocent names get changed back, but we aren't, and shouldn't be, the people that get to decide if something is offensive to someone. That wasn't all directed at you, I'm just trying to clarify my point of view a little.

And yeah they just totally missed the one with the actual slur in the name. I hope they get around to that one because I'm not really a huge fan.

SinRopa wrote:

If that’s how we’re playing this game, what’s the criteria for someone to complain that a name is discriminatory?  Everyone has the right to claim offense at anything, regardless of facts/context/common sense?

Surely there’s a line somewhere, yes?  If someone claims they are genuinely offended by your username, are you willing to redact it for a few months while some MP committee figures out whether that’s a valid complaint?  

If not, what’s the difference between your pushback there, and that of the FAs whose routes have been redacted?

Literally yes, just pay attention and be considerate. 

You can react however you please to people's objections, but be aware people will judge you accordingly.

There is no ulterior motive, no deep desire to attack people for the names of their routes, people just wanna feel comfortable. If you wish to prioritize your feeling over theirs then go right ahead, but don't think that you're doing anything else but that.

Why don't we just save time and just number the routes

SinRopa wrote:

I don’t want to be argumentative, but you didn’t really answer the question.  

It seems like we all agree that a bunch of “good” names have been swept up by the redaction process.  Being considerate goes both ways, and the way this process was rolled out doesn’t seem considerate of the FAs, or of climbers searching for those routes.  Instead, it seems like MP prioritized the feelings of anyone claiming offense (even if it was a huge stretch), or of trolls, or anyone with a bone to pick.

I’m not saying there was an ulterior motive, because I know that this was done with good intentions, but I think the whole effort seemed hastily put together and it’s hard to “unring that bell,” so to speak.

I read a WW2 book about how after all the Japanese got rounded up and placed in internment camps, some government intelligence commission came back to FDR and reported that, sure, we’ve probably got a few spies in there somewhere, but 99%+ of all the internees have no anti-US sentiment.  The administration’s response was basically, “well, we’ve already gone overboard and done it, but we don’t wanna flip flop because that’d be admitting we were wrong, and that’d be embarrassing!”

I see some parallels there.

Please stop strawmanning and comparing our points of view to interment camps. There is no relevant correlation between forcing thousands of innocent people to death and changing the names of some rocks that you personally don't find offensive. I can tell you that personally I don't have an issue with some of the name that have been redacted, but I acknowledge that I don't speak for everyone. Regardless, I agree with the vast majority of names that I see redacted and I see how some could cause some genuine pain for people. Focusing on this small issue of some climbs that you personally decide are objectively not bad getting redacted just takes away focus from the real issue and goes back into the shaming of people for standing up for themselves. And "protests" where one of the most prolific members of New England climbing, who is also a straight white male (sorry Mark I genuinely do appreciate you a lot) stands up for the names of a couple rock trails over the voices of many people just now letting their voices be heard, genuinely does hinder the process.

SinRopa wrote:

Uh, death, who said anything about death?  This is about an ill-conceived, badly implemented plan with good intentions that garnered support because it was "only temporary."  Definite correlation.

This is a problem.  You acknowledge that there are only some that genuinely need to be redacted, but you're still ok with redacting the vast majority of the rest?

"Shaming people for standing up for themselves is bad.  Now read on as I shame someone for standing up for himself."  

He/She/They is either the greatest troll or the prime example of why people have that weird undying support for the Big Orange. By this logic anything that remotely upsets someone should be censored. But clearly can’t see why the MAJORITY of people think you need to draw a line before you are just attacking differing views.  

 I can imagine the sign he holds on river road heading toward Cathedral. “thou shall not name routes after animal nicknames, repent you sinners or face forever online shaming by the chosen ones”. Just make sure you don’t drink the flavoraid he is handing out. 

SinRopa wrote:

This is a problem.  You acknowledge that there are only some that genuinely need to be redacted, but you're still ok with redacting the vast majority of the rest?

I meant that I agree with them being redacted, not their message. 

"Shaming people for standing up for themselves is bad.  Now read on as I shame someone for standing up for himself."  

The difference is a matter of importance and privilege (yes I'm using the buzzwords, sue me). Mark standing up for route names is far less significant of a struggle, because despite not intending to, he is standing in contention with oppressed people trying to feel comfortable.  

Insert namewrote:

He/She/They is either the greatest troll or the prime example of why people have that weird undying support for the Big Orange. By this logic anything that remotely upsets someone should be censored. But clearly can’t see why the MAJORITY of people think you need to draw a line before you are just attacking differing views.  

 I can imagine the sign he holds on river road heading toward Cathedral. “thou shall not name routes after animal nicknames, repent you sinners or face forever online shaming by the chosen ones”. Just make sure you don’t drink the flavoraid he is handing out. 

I just.... I just want people to feel safe in our community. Hooters arete and KIWS are fine, ya got me, now can we stop focusing on them and go back to prioritizing the people that are actually oppressed?

Lily Johnsonwrote:

I meant that I agree with them being redacted, not their message. 

The difference is a matter of importance and privilege (yes I'm using the buzzwords, sue me). Mark standing up for route names is far less significant of a struggle, because despite not intending to, he is standing in contention with oppressed people trying to feel comfortable.  

Dude, I think I have explained several times that it is not the route names per say that I am so interested in, rather the societal ramifications of sloppily using a bass akwards technique to attempt to achieve social justice that just ends up perpetuating the same elements underlaying racism, homophobia etc.

Can we drop this ridiculous divisive over the top name shit and go back to climbing with our green, red, yellow, white, black, brown, gay, straight, trans., genius, moron etc. fellow climbing friends like most of us always have?*

*of course once Covid is under control. ;)

M Spraguewrote:

Dude, I think I have explained several times that it is not the route names per say that I am so interested in, rather the societal ramifications of sloppily using a bass akwards technique to attempt to achieve social justice that just ends up perpetuating the same elements underlaying racism, homophobia etc.

I understand that, and that's why I think that this form of protest is ineffective. It doesn't communicate that point and just reflects poorly on all of us. I can't say enough how much I respect you, honestly, I just think this is the wrong way to go about this and stands in the way of the progress. Obviously this all does come down to feelings though, and there's no way I can convince anyone I am "objectively" correct.

EDIT: Okay, fuck it. I don't agree with you guys but I think this thread is just taking away attention from the real issue and not making any progress. I probably should have realized this sooner and I apologize for continuing to post for so long.

Lily Johnsonwrote:

I understand that, and that's why I think that this form of protest is ineffective. It doesn't communicate that point and just reflects poorly on all of us. I can't say enough how much I respect you, honestly, I just think this is the wrong way to go about this and stands in the way of the progress. Obviously this all does come down to feelings though, and there's no way I can convince anyone I am "objectively" correct.

So its better to try to fix a problem even if the solution obviously won't fix the problem or make any headway? One could say your undermining progress by not actually attempting to fix the problem in a meaningful way. I feel like mountain project is trying to fix brain cancer with a lobotomy. 

Obviously somethings need to take tiny steps forward, but this isn't even a step forward its a misdirection. 

Lily Johnsonwrote:

I understand that, and that's why I think that this form of protest is ineffective. It doesn't communicate that point and just reflects poorly on all of us. I can't say enough how much I respect you, honestly, I just think this is the wrong way to go about this and stands in the way of the progress. Obviously this all does come down to feelings though, and there's no way I can convince anyone I am "objectively" correct.

In protest can I go strip every hanger from Rumney? How about Loot IME?

if you wont listen to the nonviolence bitching on MP. does that mean we must resort to physical action? You really do sound like the racists who are offended by the NFL kneeling

What form of Protest do you find acceptable?

“Kneeling isn’t a acceptable protest”, “Burning flags isn’t either”, “please stop burning down buildings and rioting, we support you protesting peacefully”.

Behold the slippery slope you say doesn’t exist. You are censoring people you disagree with in the name of progress and a polite society. This just forces the “Us vs Them” mentality we need to work away from. 

Lily Johnsonwrote:

I just.... I just want people to feel safe in our community. Hooters arete and KIWS are fine, ya got me, now can we stop focusing on them and go back to prioritizing the people that are actually oppressed?

There are over one million ethnic minorities in China in internment camps.  And people here are thinking that redacting questionably offensive names on MP is actually doing something positive, while we support the Chincoms by buying crap made in China every day. 

Ward Smithwrote:

There are over one million ethnic minorities in China in internment camps.  And people here are thinking that redacting questionably offensive names on MP is actually doing something positive, while we support the Chincoms by buying crap made in China every day. 

I thought this was a pretty well defined topic of discussion until China joined the fray.