This redacted (renaming) routes is out of control!

It is well established that “Free Speech” only goes so far.  You can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.   And you can’t just make shit up and lie about an election and undermine our whole constitution.   That lie, pulled straight from his ass the minute the results turned against him (it’s not like he made the claims cuz a big investigation report was dropped on his desk....he still has no proof today and begged an official to help him “find” votes months after the election).

If you think that a database not printing questionable route names (which I am mostly against) is a bigger threat to Democracy than the supposed leader of the free world directly trying to subvert it for his own fragile ego (which I am REALLY against) you aren’t assessing threats properly.  

1.  Trump stacked the logs for the “insurrection” with his deliberate lies telling people their government is being stolen from them.  2.  Then he lit the match with his rally and instructed them and goaded them on (and like the coward he is, he said he’d be with them, but then went to his room to watch it unfold instead).  3.   Then when it all unfolded, he just watched with a smile and did nothing until he was practically forced to upon legal peril.  

 It’s not like he went back to his room, saw what was happening, and said “oh crap, that’s not what I intended, let’s get this under control immediately”...

He’s 100% responsible for what happened, no way around it.  

If you think BLM (founded by black women, one of whom is also gay and Jewish) is a bigger threat than gun toting Trumpies intent on overthrowing a free election and threatening elected officials, then you aren’t assessing threats properly.   As much as we’re all sick of gay black jewish women running roughshod over this country for the past several hundred years. Lol  

Edit: Its hard to sift out if you’re on the “right” or wrong side in these things since we all agree in principle on 95% of stuff (censorship bad, Hitler bad, etc).   There are many ways to “self check”, but one criteria to at least give further thought to is whether you are; A) defending yourself (as a perceived victim), or B). others who ARE factually victims.

I understand it’s not always that clean and it can go both ways, but if (A) seems to apply more often than not, you may want to look into that. 

Mark Pilatewrote:

  And you can’t just make shit up and lie about an election and undermine our whole constitution.   

Actually, you can say anything you want about an election, true or not. You can say it is wrong, but it's not illegal.

FrankPSwrote:

Actually, you can say anything you want about an election, true or not. You can say it is wrong, but it's not illegal.

I wasn’t saying that from a purely legal standpoint for the average citizen.   I was saying that mainly from a responsibility/ethical standpoint as a leader who took an oath to defend the constitution.  And this also puts him in a certain legal jeopardy in terms of impeachment.  

Legal gray areas aside, I think we can all agree (maybe?) that a president should be held to a higher standard than the average joe, and that if a president lies directly to the American people it can be dangerous. — regardless of whether or not you believe he’s ever lied ever.  I mean He’s the least lying president since George Washington ;)

Tony, you can add "industrialized their nations" and "built railroads" to that list. That doesn't mean that building factories inherently leads to genocide and labor camps.

Jamila W wrote:

BigRed11, I respect your opinion and appreciate the sentiment behind I'm always a little frustrated when I hear White allies making the arguement that underrepresented groups that traditionally haven't held power need to be treated differently in the name of equality. Its an argument that at its core is discriminatrory itself (I'm not saying you are discriminating) and IMO does more harm than good towards the greater cause because it alienates so many people that believe in true equality and don't want discrimination to exist and thus can't get behind a discriminatory initiative.

You're right that my opinion can be alienating to those who claim to believe in ideal equality, but a lot of what I hear from those people is that we either already live in that ideal world (i.e. climbing is perfectly welcoming to everyone so stop rocking the boat) or the way to get there is by being color/gender/ability-blind in everything we do right now. I agree that I'd like to get to that utopia but I don't agree that treating everyone with perfect equality is the best path right now. 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that we should ignore or promote violence/hatred towards men or other dominant groups. My opinion comes from seeing bad faith arguments here and elsewhere like "if there's a women's forum then there should be a men's forum" or "if you redact a route name about slavery then you have to redact one about trailer parks" being used as a way to argue against anyone having a space they might feel safe in or taking any action at all when folks ask for change. If someone feels offended or unwelcome due to trailer park references, then their voice should certainly be heard in the process.  

The way RBG achieved her goals as a litigator is of course legendary, and I see your point that she didn't hesitate to protect both genders. However, she did use the fact that judges and juries act favorably towards male defendants as a way to gain more protections for women. I also believe she was a supporter of affirmative action programs as a way to get to the ideals of equality. And I think those can coexist, despite the defensiveness of white men who bristle at the idea of a women's forum or BIPOC climbing festival - treating everyone with respect and recognizing that systemic inequalities persist until actively addressed.

Mark Pilatewrote:

I wasn’t saying that from a purely legal standpoint for the average citizen.   I was saying that mainly from a responsibility/ethical standpoint as a leader who took an oath to defend the constitution.  And this also puts him in a certain legal jeopardy in terms of impeachment.  

Legal gray areas aside, I think we can all agree (maybe?) that a president should be held to a higher standard than the average joe, and that if a president lies directly to the American people it can be dangerous. — regardless of whether or not you believe he’s ever lied ever.  I mean He’s the least lying president since George Washington ;)

Average Joe would be in jail for doing what he did. As he should be.

Tony C wrote:

 We are currently the truly tolerant ones and you are the oppressive ones. 

I missed this little gem the first time. Probably because you love to edit your posts all the time.

Groups in this country have been oppressed for hundreds of years and slowly they are getting power and being heard and you don't like it. It has nothing to do with brainwashing by "Marxist professors" and everything to do with calling out B.S., holding people accountable, and making the world a little less sh%^ty. You are not the victim.

My family was sent to those camps written about in the Gulag Archipelago. They would have loved to live your "oppressed America", but they couldn't because they died under an actual oppressive regime.

Parachute Adamswrote:

Average Joe would be in jail for doing what he did. As he should be.

Is this a Joe Biden remark or something else? Forgive me for my denseness.

Tony C wrote:

1) You are simply incorrect and here is one REASON why... "Reporting others to the authorities" is the very definition of "ratting each other out". And this is exactly what has been encouraged on this very thread. My comment "ratting each other out" was not about redaction. It was a direct response to the fact that some people on MP are encouraging people to rate each other out. Furthermore, these claims of racism or sexism have no objective standard. People can literally claim ANYTHING is racist or sexist and there is no standard by which to refute their claim. This practice is divisive and has a long history of destroying communities.

2) You are simply incorrect and here is one REASON why.... MP IS a private sphere. It is privately owned. They are a publisher, not an open platform that the general public can freely speak on.They have a right to edit the content and they have chosen to exercise that right. That is the entire point of this thread.

3) I don't know what your comment "Communism != Nazism" is supposed to mean. 

Nazism is, literally, NATIONALIZED SOCIALISM. A point that appears to have been missed by several people in this thread. Either due to ignorance, a lack of education, brainwashing, or some other reason unknown to me. Democratic Socialism and Communism are the dominant political ideologies within the international socialist movement today. 

Communism is an ideology with the goal of establishing a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of state ownership of the means of production and the elimination of social classes and money. In the context of a purely philosophical theory it also claims to desire elimination of the state. A truly Communist State has, however, never actually been fully realized. Every attempt, so far, has been destroyed by the people living within it. Some examples include the former East Germany and the former U.S.S.R.

4) My prior comment was a direct response to several users asking me to cite some historically factual context to support what I said earlier. I might ask you to do the same, rather than simply claiming I have not read books or quoting claims people have made with no evidence for their claims. I could have ignored them because it is, strictly speaking, "off topic" but...

"National Socialism is the same as Communism; read a book!" This has got to be a new low. Or at least should be, but I suppose there have been lots fo dumb things said in this thread.

I feel like the real question is why do we feel it's fun to act dumb as soon as the word 'politics' is mentioned? If someone said your crankshaft was the same as your camshaft, we'd immediately stop listening. Cause we want our car to work. Is it that we don't want our republic to work?

If people wanted to argue about a route they'd never been on, we'd laugh and move on. Yet this thread includes a long "discussion" about a book no one here has read. If someone said climbing the local crag was the same as climbing the Dawn Wall, we'd laugh and move on. Yet we're spending actual time arguing about 'slippery slope' nonsense because someone used the word 'politics.' I get that convincing us all that it's OK to think like a moron when the subject is politics helps the talking heads. But is that really all there is to it?

Tony C wrote:

Jonas,

No. They are not the same. The Nazis were not Communists. The Nazis actually hated the Communists and fought against them in WW2. 

Oh, so you're saying they're " != "? 

Tony C wrote:

Jonas,

I'm saying exactly what I am saying. Nothing more and nothing less. I assume the same of you. I disagree with your statement, "National Socialism is the same as Communism; read a book!" 

That's cause it's not my statement. What happens when you type " != " into your search bar?

Dave K wrote:

That's your standard for the president of the United States?

"I mean ... yeah ... we all know the riot would not have started if he just kept his mouth shut, or not have used his influence to spread an absurd lie, or respected the outcome as determined by voters, and reaffirmed by judges and congress .. but  ... technically ... what he did ... was not illegal.... and BLM did the same thing, kinda sorta" 

The trumpies really need to turn off the talk radio, open an 8th grade civics book, and re-assess their understanding of how our country works.

Uh, I never opined on whether the president should or shouldn't have said what he did. I said it was not illegal. And that was all.  A pretty simple statement.

Read into it what you choose, but don't presume to know my thoughts! Or what I meant to say. Or that was my presidential standard. You're smart Dave, but not a mind-reader.

All presidents have said things they shouldn't have, so it's not just Trump.

Bouldi Troll wrote:

logical assumptions dave made in the context ( i mean its all about context, right?) of the conversation. 

so share with us your thoughts on the presidents actions post election in regard to the insurrection. 

Not getting sucked into it. I'll leave it to the political punditry of Mountain Project to debate and (not) solve. Please proceed!

Edit: Hit my post limit, T. Lego. Don't be angry. 

Nolan Yahok wrote:

What do you think we should do?

Nothing, leave it alone..... sheesh!

Aren't we all used to Frank interjecting in every possible thread before his classic "reaching my post limit" one-liner and dipping out when actually confronted on his opinions? 

FrankPSwrote:

 ....All presidents have said things they shouldn't have, so it's not just Trump.

Totally agree.  But personally, that’s why I think Bill Clinton should’ve been convicted and removed and why Trump should be convicted.  

Like everything, there is a spectrum ranging from simple exaggeration, to basic partisan “spin”, to outright lying directly to the face of the American people for simple personal gain or protection.  

If you lied like that at work, you’d be fired.  No less for them.  While I think Clinton was a fairly decent president, the fucker lied directly to our faces in an act of cowardice.  BOOT!

Same for Trump.  A cowardly lie with severe ramifications, just to save face from a loss he couldn’t accept.  BOOT !

Ben Franklin said (paraphrasing) “A nation gets what it deserves”

Apparently we deserve cowardly liars. 

Mark Pilatewrote:

Totally agree.  But personally, that’s why I think Bill Clinton should’ve been convicted and removed and why Trump should be convicted.  

Like everything, there is a spectrum ranging from simple exaggeration, to basic partisan “spin”, to outright lying directly to the face of the American people for simple personal gain or protection.  

If you lied like that at work, you’d be fired.  No less for them.  While I think Clinton was a fairly decent president, the fucker lied directly to our faces in an act of cowardice.  BOOT!

Same for Trump.  A cowardly lie with severe ramifications, just to save face from a loss he couldn’t accept.  BOOT !

Ben Franklin said (paraphrasing) “A nation gets what it deserves”

Apparently we deserve cowardly liars. 

You’re comparing what Trump has done to Clinton lying about a blow job?
You’re killing me. 

B Pwrote:

You’re comparing what Trump has done to Clinton lying about a blow job?
You’re killing me. 

I don't think it was the blowjob as much as the cigar thing. Kinda crossed the line.

B Pwrote:

You’re comparing what Trump has done to Clinton lying about a blow job?
You’re killing me. 

Not at all.  No comparison whatsoever in context, background, or threat to country.  

Doesn’t really matter though in terms of penalty and being held to the standard.   The more you allow waffling, weaseling, and rationalization to the simple and clear fact of self serving lies, we become lost 

— ta daaa! And here we are.  

Or let’s just say oaths, honor, character, and truth are not really important at all as long as we get what we want from hollow shells of pretend “leaders”.   The “other” side is way worse after all  

Every man on Earth has lied about a blowjob whether he says he didn't and he did, or didn't but says he did get one to impress the boys down at the pool hall. Pretty sure the lying about sex started in some primordial ooze bitd. We're all gonna burn lol.

False Equivalency is False.

Gonna name a route: Monica's Fault. Clinton was only a Man.

If the country didn't squander all those votes on Hillary in '16 we'd be celebrating Gary Johnson's 2nd term, flying cars, interstellar travel and unlimited freedom.

But y'all want to stay stuck in the Red and Blue tribes