Introducing Climb United

Whisk3rzz 1wrote:

That's not how it works at all. As an alaskan native, I could call this post of yours, racist and demand you to delete it. At least by your logic

I suppose you could...if you can show me the racist slur.

IOW, you're engaging in a semantic argument for the sake of argument.

M Spraguewrote:

Well, I disagree with that blanket statement. If you were to take that at face value, would a white person for instance, in a minority situation be right in designating anything they wanted as "racist"  even if it was because they misunderstood or weren't familiar with the full breadth of a language or were lacking in historical knowledge beyond their personal experience?

It's quite a stretch to suggest that white people are a marginalized group.

The interesting aspect to me is the narrow band in which all of this is applied. It's come up in many threads debating this same topic, where genuinely painful experiences are also used in route names. Since their definition is as follows: "A route name is harmful when it hurts any community member or when it discriminates and discourages a climber from experiencing the route."

Unless the "community member" solely applies to POC and LGTBQ+ members, where do other hurtful terms fall on the spectrum?

Suicide: 773 routes on MP. Tahquitz & Suicide Rocks. Suicide Canyon

It's a word that bring terrible thoughts, emotions, and experiences to mind for many; myself included. Is our discomfort just as relevant, or will those who are so eager to toss tradition out the window, also be willing to rename and replace guidebooks and protest the maps featuring these names? 

Personally, I try to maintain an internal locus of control on my feelings, and don't allow a word to ruin my climbing excursion- even if I've had terrible experiences with the phrase. Then again,

Oppressive: weighing heavily on the mind or spirits; causing depression or discomfort.

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

The book may have had abolitionism as a central theme, but the character of Uncle Tom is the heart of the question here, not the book itself. Most compelling stories have villains, antiheroes, and characters you simply do not sympathize with.

Naw, not even the character of Uncle Tom is in question here. The history of the book, then the hundreds of different theatrical offshoots, and then eventually of the term "Uncle Tom" itself is super complex and wide-spanning. It's arguably the most influential book in US history. But rather than get into those details, it's pretty clear that using the term for a route name is a bad idea.

This place has turned into a tame version of Wide Fetish.

Mike Graywrote:

As if this was anything but PC virtue signaling to gain back revenues lost last year, and to distract climbers from asking exactly why they should continue to support advocates like the AAC, which was created and still predominantly controlled by males, as well as the organizations that "speak for all climbers" while actually representing about 2%, all of whom are working hard behind the scenes to install their private agenda in climbing management programs while loudly proclaiming their support for "local climbing input", organizations that don't allow fee paying members much say on topics like creating new positions or chapters, who fills those admin positions, where to place mission focus, or outreach direction.

NO word used by a group to describe its own members (and make a ton of money selling albums or books) should be on that list.

White advocates for use of the N-word are the absolute best.

In some ways I really appreciate unapologetic racists in that they don't try to hide it.

So let's see if we can turn this thread back to the actual issue it was about, the AAC's posting. I feel like there are a few points we probably all agree on:

1) A list of words is a pretty coarse tool for removing route names.

2) Climbers don't want to be assholes to other climbers.

3) We do have to watch out for 'dishonest actors,' whether in the form of culture warriors or their offspring the social justice warriors. 

To go a bit more in depth:

1) If we ignore the nonsense part of Sprague's posts, I think their central point is good. Language is more complex than just a list of words. The advantages of using a list like that are that it's simple, it was relatively cheap to make, it can be turned into computer code really easily, it provides an illusion of clarity and objectivity. The disadvantages are that it will catch things like 'Mick Jagger', and it will miss things that are still hurtful. It seems like Nick's take, a panel of people reviewing route names that climbers flagged, was a more thorough and nuanced solution. But also a more expensive, time consuming, and less 'objective' one.

2) I think if any of us stepped on someone's foot on accident, we'd just say sorry and move on with our lives. We wouldn't spend time needing to explain it wasn't on purpose, that we're not foot-stepping kind of people, that people in history have stepped on other people's feet. We'd be adults and just try not to step on people's feet in the future. If people are honestly hurt by route names we have submitted, I think that we all want to avoid that harm. We also don't want to go stepping on the feet of FAist. I feel like the AAC proposal has a lot of safeguards for respecting the FAist's wishes. While their list may not be flagging all the right names, or only the right names, it seems like the process of going back to the FAist is a good one. Most climbers will be perfectly fine clarifying "Slow Children" to "Slow, Children" because their intention was never to insult climbers in the first place.

3) In a reasonable world, we could probably agree with Marc and say that if even one climber is hurt by a name, we should take that seriously. But we don't live in a reasonable world, and as Whiskerzz points out, there will be some people that will pretend to be hurt for 'political' reasons. And people who will defend asshole names to 'fight the leftists' like Dinneen. It's unfortunate that there's all this money going into making political mountains out every molehill. But we do need a way, IMHO, to keep these people and their borrowed opinions out of the conversation. I think that was a legit concern of Nick's anonymous group of reviewers, what if the group was full of 'warriors' of one flavor or another? A list of words does avoid that, kind of. But as Mitch points out, there's still lots of people not being served by this list. I don't know how to get people to be honest and personal in expressing their hurt and avoid injecting 'warriors' into the conversation. But a good system would have a way to do so, I think. 

Zach Holtwrote:

It was cool to admit your mistake regarding that term.

Below it, when you defend use of the word queer, by pointing out it is in the preferred acronym...for “acronym people”, you marginalize members of that community. They are just “people” man. I understand your argument, but the slurs got to go.

I can't remember all those letters man they add more all the time

The point is, when you and I go to the crag to play our silly game, as long as we aren’t blasting tunes, or doing things that threaten access, we are likely going to feel accepted in the community. All should feel welcome and accepted. Period.

Incorrect. Gym climbers should not be welcomed at the crag.

Jokes aside... the list is goofy and dumb, because I'd guess 60 percent of those words haven't been in common usage for decades. And the terms for disabled people are actual terms. Some people are crippled. Some people are autistic. They have genetic defects, or they got in an accident. Shit happens. Imo, we marginalize that by saying things like 'differently abled' or 'otherwise advantaged' or whatever were supposed to say. 

I can't really imagine a circumstance where most of these words would come up in a route name, especially because I've never used hardly any of them in conversation... but blanket banning never helps anything. 

Uncle Tom could also refer to the Warrant song. Cool song too.

Calling someone an acronym person would not be polite but I do not see it as marginalizing when the phrase is used to describe the constantly changing rules and names for groups. I find myself avoiding the acronyms and even avoiding certain conversations because I am afraid of being accused of using the wrong word. I guess you can say I avoid the acronym people. Anyone can be offended if they are looking for it. I have friends that are bothered by the new BIPOC label because it leaves out Asians. People get upset because their race doesn't get a letter. But then again with all of the hate crimes being committed against Asians recently, maybe they have a point.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

... the list is goofy and dumb, because I'd guess 60 percent of those words haven't been in common usage for decades.

Shouldn't that tell you something? Like perhaps people have realized how and why those words are objectionable and maybe that's why they shouldn't be used in route names?

 And the terms for disabled people are actual terms. Some people are crippled.

That have fallen into disuse - certainly in the medical community - because they are hurtful.

I can't really imagine a circumstance where most of these words would come up in a route name,...

Except for the ass who decides to use them in a route name to be "edgy" or anti-PC or to "own the libtards".

 especially because I've never used hardly any of them in conversation...

Ah, the gold standard metric.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

...because I'd guess 60 percent of those words haven't been in common usage for decades. 

...I can't really imagine a circumstance where most of these words would come up in a route name, especially because I've never used hardly any of them in conversation... but blanket banning never helps anything. 

FYI, my home area has a crag that was originally called "Sambo Crag," one of those words that you've been swearing "hasn't been used in over 100 years."

JonasMRwrote:

2) Climbers don't want to be assholes to other climbers.

That's laughable.

JonasMRwrote:

3) We do have to watch out for 'dishonest actors,' whether in the form of culture warriors or their offspring the social justice warriors. 

No, we really don't.

PWZwrote:

That's laughable.

Then you'd best stay away from crags. It's a real simple thing to 'accidentally' drop a rock on someone. And since we're all out to do one another harm...

No, we really don't.

If we don't then there is no point in this conversation. The warriors will always be louder than the folks expressing their own opinions. And we already know where the warriors lead us: pointless gridlock. 

Mitch Montywrote:

Unless the "community member" solely applies to POC and LGTBQ+ members, where do other hurtful terms fall on the spectrum?

Suicide: 773 routes on MP. Tahquitz & Suicide Rocks. Suicide Canyon

It's a word that bring terrible thoughts, emotions, and experiences to mind for many; myself included. 

As someone who has been battling severe depression for the majority of my life, whether or not that kind of name seems hurtful to me would be entirely dependent on the state of my mental health at the time. On my good days I probably would care. On my bad days I'd feel like someone mocking my suicidal ideation is a dick move. 

JonasMRwrote:

. And we already know where the warriors lead us: pointless gridlock. 

Is it the dreaded social justice warrior s that are leading to gridlock, or the stalwart opposition who won't for a minute consider that their opinions are hot garbage.

I know, you're bein' repressed

Astrid Reywrote:

Calling someone an acronym person would not be polite but I do not see it as marginalizing when the phrase is used to describe the constantly changing rules and names for groups. I find myself avoiding the acronyms and even avoiding certain conversations because I am afraid of being accused of using the wrong word. I guess you can say I avoid the acronym people. Anyone can be offended if they are looking for it. I have friends that are bothered by the new BIPOC label because it leaves out Asians. People get upset because their race doesn't get a letter. But then again with all of the hate crimes being committed against Asians recently, maybe they have a point.

The POC segment of BIPOC includes Asians, does it not?

I am not a big fan of the new term BIPOC, but I have much bigger fish to fry when it comes to social justice issues.

I'm pretty sure POC includes everyone except invisible folk.

Khoiwrote:

The POC segment of BIPOC includes Asians, does it not?

I am not a big fan of the new term BIPOC, but I have much bigger fish to fry when it comes to social justice issues.

I'm with you, in large part because I'm bisexual and constantly read it as bisexual people of color

"People" seems like it would be the most simple and cover everybody

JonasMR wrote:

Yes, it's both of those people. The warriors on the two sides of the 'war'. Because the 'war' is something both sides have been convinced exists and is important, when it's really a distraction.

You'll notice I never said that, and it in no way relates to what I'm saying. It's a retort for people on 'the other side,' and you seem to have guessed that I must be on 'the other side.' Because you haven't read what I was saying. Because you wanted to find out which 'side' I was on, and then decide what you thought about what I was writing. THE SIDES DON'T MATTER. 

I hear ya that it's a pain in the ass to actually read people's opinions. Much easier to guess which side they're on, then assume they're just saying the things that side says. BUT SIDES DO NOT ALLOW FOR CONVERSATION!

It would be worth your while to go back and read what I actually wrote. Or don't and just stay in your two-sided world. But know that your two-sided world leaves no room for actual discussion, just pointless performance. 

Sounds like you have excellent balance from all that fence walking