This redacted (renaming) routes is out of control!

Franck Vee wrote:

So, just checking on this thread, as I assume we've reached a consensus/unanimity by page 18:

Are we cool renaming routes or not?

Psh, consensus on route naming? You gotta be kidding me. We're not even asking the question any more.

Now we got some people claiming they're talking about pretend names instead of real life ones. We got some people pretending that if a person worries about some Black people, they must mean each Black person. We got some people being confused about world history, and thinking it's relevant. Basically, it got decided this was about 'politics' so the culture warriors got called in and started doing their thing. 

It's a shame. Especially if that article gets people looking at MP and finding nonsense like this thread as a representation of the climbing community. 

Karinia Gaston wrote:

While the phrase has been pathetically normalized over the years to mean being humiliated, the origin actually stems from domestic abuse specifically in the Black community. Specifically prostitution. It's used to assert dominance over women. 

https://bluemassgroup.com/2007/04/pimping-why-some-white-male-progressives-are-fascinated-wusing-offensive-pseudo-ghetto-slang/

And yes, it IS accurate that people who are comfortable with phrases such as these will either become more comfortable with domestic violence to some degree or they already are. In fact, our society is only now starting to acknowledge that domestic violence is NOT normal/okay and worth addressing.

When society throws around violent phrases targeted against women this easily it is literally making light of the actual situation. What happens when a victim's experience is downplayed into something funny? They are much more likely to remain silent.

The article you linked used the word Ghetto, which historically originates from anti-semitic segregation in the 1500's where Jews were forced to live in a certain part of the city. Later on, Hitler loved the ghettos because it made the Holocaust easier. Should I accuse the article writer of erasing the history of jewish struggle by co-opting the word Ghetto? No, I shouldn't, because the use of words can change. 

There's 30+ routes with the word ghetto in the name. Should we redact them all because the origin refers to something very anti-semitic?

When someone uses the word Ghetto, I don't think the first thing that pops into people's heads is the origin of jewish segregation, thus I don't think using the word normalizes jewish segregation. When someone uses the word Bitch-slap, I don't think the first thing that pops into people's heads is the origin of domestic violence either, thus I don't think it normalizes domestic violence.

Kyle Elliott wrote:

That.. or.. Or! They were a POS bigoted cis gendered white male that not only needs to check their privilege and stop perpetuating domestic violence against women, but needs to atone for unatonable sin. I can't believe this community, how DARE you go out and have fun outdoors and name things silly or crude names, you un-woke literal hitlers. 

I just spit my kombucha into my organic tofurkey quinoa salad.

Franck Vee wrote:

So, just checking on this thread, as I assume we've reached a consensus/unanimity by page 18:

Are we cool renaming routes or not?

I don't think anyone's arguing against FAists renaming routes. If you want to be known as the kind of wokester who renames routes 'black is beautiful' then that's fine with me.  

Redacting routes on MP is lame, to be sure, especially judging by how many undeserving have been redacred, but it is Nick's site and he can do what he wants. Guidebooks will always have more authority over route names.

Franck Vee wrote:

So, just checking on this thread, as I assume we've reached a consensus/unanimity by page 18:

Are we cool renaming routes or not?

Franck,

Yes, we have reached a consensus that routes will not be renamed because some people don't like them. In unanimous agreement, we've come to realize that we are adults and can decide for ourselves if route names are offensive, without the need to purge the names. You know how you can change the channel on the TV if you don't like the show? Same thing on route names - turn the page. Move on.

 I'm so proud of Mountain Project for not making a knee-jerk decision to rename routes.

Great. We should write to the Denver post so they know we're all kumbaya now!

Jamila W wrote:

I don't know if this was directed at my post above yours but it sounds a little condescending and dismisive.  If you weren't talking to me I apologise but please remember when making your points that one can mean well but also be misguided.

The man quoted in the article says "To me, if a Black person walks in there, it’s pretty offensive.”  He didn't say that he can see how some Black people might thinks its offensive or clarify his words in any way that would clarify that he's not talking about Blacks as a single bloc.  He's using the trope of an interchangeable Black person in his reasoning and saying that if a Black person walks  in there they're going to be offended.  I understand that his sentiment is in the right place but this sort of reasoning perpetuates the stereotype of the racially hypersensitive Black American that isn't intelligent enough to distinguish between legitimate monuments glorifying racial inequality like a KKK statue in a state building and things that have no historical racial ties like the catholic self whipping ritual in the canyon.

I appreciate you owning up to the fact that he did not say anything about all Black people, and that your statement about how you perceived the name was not relevant to his statement. 

As a non-mind reader, I'm not certain what he was thinking when he said those words. Perhaps he was envisioning a foolish Black archetype. Perhaps he was imagining a particular friend who said something to him. Hard to know. But I would definitely agree that he could be saying something he wants to take more of a look at in his own personal growth. And he sounds like the kind of man that would be open to considering his meanings and growing.

If the point you were adding is that we should all continue to be aware of non-conscious unfair assumptions, I suspect we all appreciate the reminder. But if it were meant to be relevant to the larger discussion of whether renaming routes was appropriate, I stand by any dismissiveness you read in my comments. If one route developer (or all) could be a better human being does not seem to be an interesting argument in the larger issue. I promise that everyone could be better, that's part of being human. And, as a human, you knew that fact perfectly well before you started writing. So using this non-point sure seems to be culture warrioring rather than honestly approaching the question. But, if I misunderstood your intention, I apologize. 

JonasMR wrote:

I appreciate you owning up to the fact that he did not say anything about all Black people, and that your statement about how you perceived the name was not relevant to his statement. 

As a non-mind reader, I'm not certain what he was thinking when he said those words. Perhaps he was envisioning a foolish Black archetype. Perhaps he was imagining a particular friend who said something to him. Hard to know. But I would definitely agree that he could be saying something he wants to take more of a look at in his own personal growth. And he sounds like the kind of man that would be open to considering his meanings and growing.

If the point you were adding is that we should all continue to be aware of non-conscious unfair assumptions, I suspect we all appreciate the reminder. But if it were meant to be relevant to the larger discussion of whether renaming routes was appropriate, I stand by any dismissiveness you read in my comments. If one route developer (or all) could be a better human being does not seem to be an interesting argument in the larger issue. I promise that everyone could be better, that's part of being human. And, as a human, you knew that fact perfectly well before you started writing. So using this non-point sure seems to be culture warrioring rather than honestly approaching the question. But, if I misunderstood your intention, I apologize. 

If you are actually a member of the alt-right here in efforts to make the 'woke' crowd look foolish, then I have to admit to being impressed by the masterful execution, if not the mission. It feels like I'm watching the other side's Colbert Report.

John Q wrote:

If you are actually a member of the alt-right here in efforts to make the 'woke' crowd look foolish, then I have to admit to being impressed by the masterful execution, if not the mission. It feels like I'm watching the other side's Colbert Report.

Sounds about right. "If someone is saying sides and culture wars are dumb, they're probably a secret agent of one side pretending to be on the other side." Afterall, the true true is that being on a side is the most important thing in the world. Avoid thinking, praise My Side!

There's like a dozen countries where the convicted might be whipped. That's fucking inhuman.

Still, I love the name Whipping Post; it makes me think of a brutal climb and that incredible Allman Brothers song.

Garry Reiss wrote:

There's like a dozen countries where the convicted might be whipped. That's fucking inhuman.

Why?

Genuine question. After all, that was considered moral and just in many societies for thousands of years.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

Why?

Genuine question. After all, that was considered moral and just in many societies for thousands of years.

You're right, it was. Just like slavery and a thousand other disgusting things.

SinRopa wrote:

It's kinda surreal watching a woke white guy harangue a black chick for not being woke enough.

Totally. Could you imagine someone having a disagreement, and not focusing on the other person's race? How could someone not know that life is all about identity politics now? Straight up ridiculous. How is he ever going to score points for his side that way?

Garry Reiss wrote:

You're right, it was. Just like slavery and a thousand other disgusting things.

You haven't answered my question.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

You haven't answered my question.

No, he did. And it went **whoosh** over your head.

Auden Alsop wrote:

I don’t know man, maybe society progresses?

Not really. It never follows a linear progression. 

The entire society of humanity becomes more and more 'moral' and 'just' because time passes, and we're the pinnacle of human existence? I don't buy that. By what standard are you judging this?

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

.... and we're the pinnacle of human existence? I don't buy that. By what standard are you judging this?

By the only universal standard that matters...there’s “before toilet paper”, and there’s “after toilet paper”.    

We had a brief scare for a bit with the onset of covid, but thankfully it appears we are now free and safe to continue progressing. (I have set aside for now, my experimentation with squirt bottles)

Auden Alsop wrote:

From an average standard of living perspective I would argue that we certainly do live in the most successful and wealthy state the world has seen, on average. I’m not saying that people on average have become more moral, I am saying that outlawing slavery is clear human progress.

Successful and wealthy, yes. We're not talking about slavery though. No one's answered my question: why is whipping convicted criminals disgusting and immoral?

Guys, give Daniel a chance. He's barely been out of high school and with all the cuts we've made in education since WE got out of there, he's fighting with a hand behind his back.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

Successful and wealthy, yes. We're not talking about slavery though. No one's answered my question: why is whipping convicted criminals disgusting and immoral?

I'm just going with my gut.