Introducing Climb United

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.

That was how my friend explained it to me. But her complaint was that it was like adding a dot dot dot or an etcetera at the end of a list. I know that a few years ago the term POC was popular but someone made the effort to change it. POC seemed more inclusive as it included everyone of color. I guess you could say all people of color were united by that term. Now the new acronym is like a list but with an et cetera at the end. I understand that it is not possible to make an acronym with every race or group in it, but why did they create a new acronym to specifically include only some? It implies that there are two classes. Even in the Climb United page the words black and indigenous are capitalized and people of color are in lowercase.

I agree that there are more important issues, like the recent rash of violence against Asians I mentioned earlier. But this violence is being downplayed by the media. The BIPOC acronym could be a clue to why it is downplayed.

I wish the Access Fund would spend moneys on crags. 

Remember when they WASTED MILLIONS of dollars suing the federal government? How is that going? .... Oh right. It's not. 

JonasMRwrote:

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. 

Maybe a good start would be to listen to what has already been said by many people and stop categorizing people as ‘warriors’ because you can’t/don’t want to understand their POV

I second Pablo's point.

Jonas, as you said, I'm sure we agree on the vast majority of things. I think you are too quick to "categorize" someone as a warrior. I know I'm guilty of playing sides sometimes. Hopefully I can do more listening in the future.

Captain Ahabwrote:

Maybe a good start would be to listen to what has already been said by many people and stop categorizing people as ‘warriors’ because you can’t/don’t want to understand their POV

Oh, I'm not doing the categorizing, nor am I saying anyone's POV is wrong. I'm saying many comments in this thread aren't relevant to the original post. I'm not saying Dinneen's worries about a leftist takeover are wrong because I don't agree with them (although I don't). I'm saying they're not relevant because he said he didn't care about the OP and wasn't talking about that post. Hopefully you're right and I'm just not understanding these (oft repeated) viewpoints on the culture war, cause they sure seem kinda repetitive. But even if I don't get 'em, they're still derailing this thread away from what the AAC proposed, and into a subject we aren't likely to make progress on in an MP thread.

It's like if we were asked, 'what is 4+5.' And people immediately noted that was an arithmetic question and decided to offer opinions about whether 1/0 should be Inf or NaN. They may have interesting opinions, and it might be worth taking a look at those opinions in depth. I get that 1/0 seems like an interesting question. But we're not going to solve it here, and we don't need to if we want to address the question actually being asked. Discussions about it aren't bad, they're just not relevant.

Yoda Jedi Knightwrote:

Jonas, as you said, I'm sure we agree on the vast majority of things. I think you are too quick to "categorize" someone as a warrior. I know I'm guilty of playing sides sometimes. Hopefully I can do more listening in the future.

I am glad to hear it. And I'm glad we could find you that paper you were looking for on experienced gender and neurobiology. I'm sorry if when I called you a culture warrior it seemed like I was saying that's a characteristic you'd always be stuck with. I meant you were playing a culture warrior at that time. I'm happy to hear you're heading away from that, I look forward to hearing more of your own opinions and fewer talking points from a 'side' in the future, and I'll do my best to give your posts the benefit of the doubt going forward.

PWZ wrote:

Sounds like you have excellent balance from all that fence walking

Sure. If you don't belong to one of only two sides, you must be carefully balancing on the fence in between. What if, just maybe, the two sides aren't important here? I know I keep repeating myself, and you keep ignoring the possibility, so I'm probably wasting my time re-writing it. But just, what if?

M Spraguewrote:

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

Is that an acronym? 

The Nazi's were also big fans of censorship.

PNW Chosswrote:

The Nazi's were also big fans of censorship.

Godwin's Law

Doesn't mean it doesn't connect. 

Or if the Nazis can't be used, the ccp is a big fan of censorship

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Doesn't mean it doesn't connect. 

Or if the Nazis can't be used, the ccp is a big fan of censorship

Are you being censored here? Or are you still dealing in pure hypothetical?

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

Are you being censored here? Or are you still dealing in pure hypothetical?

Dude in Canada you can be prosecuted for extremely subjective definitions of "hate speech" this shit is coming soon. I also was once fired from a korean barbecue joint for using the phrase "kids in africa could have eaten that" (jokingly) to a coworker throwing out kebabs. I don't know where im going with this though tbh

Whisk3rzz 1wrote:

Dude in Canada you can be prosecuted for extremely subjective definitions of "hate speech" this shit is coming soon. I also was once fired from a korean barbecue joint for using the phrase "kids in africa could have eaten that" (jokingly) to a coworker throwing out kebabs. I don't know where im going with this though tbh

Asking route developers and guidebook authors not to use racial slurs is not part of some mastermind conspiracy to police kebab slinging cooks’ speech- it’s just asking climbers to try not to be dicks to eachother. 

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

Are you being censored here? Or are you still dealing in pure hypothetical?

"Help! Private companies and a nonprofit organization won't publish my racial slurs! I'm being oppressed!"

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

Are you being censored here? Or are you still dealing in pure hypothetical?

 Bro you can't imagine how many of my posts have been deleted, come see the violence inherent in the system

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

 Bro you can't imagine how many of my posts have been deleted, come see the violence inherent in the system

Look twice before you cross the street 

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

Asking route developers and guidebook authors not to use racial slurs is not part of some mastermind conspiracy to police kebab slinging cooks’ speech- it’s just asking climbers to try not to be dicks to eachother. 

You'll be sorry when all of us kebab kings are gone

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

 Bro you can't imagine how many of my posts have been deleted, come see the violence inherent in the system

That must be really hard for you. I hope you're able to find spaces on the internet where you feel welcome and safe from the violence of having your posts deleted.

Astrid Reywrote:

That was how my friend explained it to me. But her complaint was that it was like adding a dot dot dot or an etcetera at the end of a list. I know that a few years ago the term POC was popular but someone made the effort to change it...

I agree that there are more important issues, like the recent rash of violence against Asians I mentioned earlier. But this violence is being downplayed by the media. The BIPOC acronym could be a clue to why it is downplayed.

That was my first reaction, but as an Asian American immigrant, I can't in good conscious compare the social injustice inflicted on me to those of black & indigenous Americans. And being in a group with a higher median income than even white Americans, I'm not exactly sure what rationale I would come up to justify moving up the list. Of course, that's just me, and I recognize US immigration policy tends to draw highly educated Asians, so this income advantage shouldn't be surprising to some extent. On the other hand, there are many Asian Americans (or any race) in poverty or have suffered greatly in other ways.

Whisk3rzz 1wrote:

Dude in Canada you can be prosecuted for extremely subjective definitions of "hate speech" this shit is coming soon. 

No, you can’t. Section 13 was repealed, and it was a civil process, so no you weren’t “prosecuted”. Don’t make shit up to support your racism. 

rebootwrote:

That was my first reaction, but as an Asian American immigrant, I can't in good conscious compare the social injustice inflicted on me to those of black & indigenous Americans. And being in a group with a higher median income than even white Americans, I'm not exactly sure what rationale I would come up to justify moving up the list. Of course, that's just me, and I recognize US immigration policy tends to draw highly educated Asians, so this income advantage shouldn't be surprising to some extent. On the other hand, there are many Asian Americans (or any race) in poverty or have suffered greatly in other ways.

I think you make good points.  That does confirm that the acronym BIPOC is a list from most important to least important. I can see why that would bother people that did not make it on to the list, so to speak.