Introducing Climb United

FosterKwrote:

No, you can’t. Section 13 was repealed, and it was a civil process, so no you weren’t “prosecuted”.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. 

can you read? I've never lived in canada, just read about people getting in trouble there, maybe the laws have changed. not sure what you're even trying to say, as you're quoting me saying I was "prosecuted" but I said I was "fired".  And how am I "racist" now? thanks for the laughs bud!

Whisk3rzz 1wrote:

can you read? I've never lived in canada, just read about people getting in trouble there, maybe the laws have changed. not sure what you're even trying to say, as you're quoting me saying I was "prosecuted" but I said I was "fired".  And how am I "racist" now? thanks for the laughs bud!

Not sure this is the defense you think it is - repeating something you heard without first confirming it is only marginally better than deliberately obfuscating facts in order to convince people that the left is going to throw you in jail for bad words.

Whisk3rzz 1wrote:

can you read? I've never lived in canada, just read about people getting in trouble there, maybe the laws have changed. not sure what you're even trying to say, as you're quoting me saying I was "prosecuted" but I said I was "fired".  And how am I "racist" now? thanks for the laughs bud!

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

FosterKwrote:

Not sure this is the defense you think it is - repeating something you heard without first confirming it is only marginally better than deliberately obfuscating facts in order to convince people that the left is going to throw you in jail for bad words.

I did check. Plenty of people have been thrown in jail for offensive words, from white supremacists, black supremacists, anti semites, and homophobes. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

Also, once again, why did you call me racist and a liar? If you knew me, you'd know racism, up there with hit-and-runs and rape, is once of the things that makes my blood boil and should come with legal sentences many would consider cruel

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

PNW Chosswrote:The Nazi's were also big fans of censorship

Comparing the 501c3 charitable org AAC seeking to unite the climbing community by not publishing terms/phrases they (and many others) consider offensive to brutal totalitarian dictatorships that murdered/starved/oppressed millions is as astute as it is valid

You know you’re privileged when you compare the Nazis to the AAC

B Pwrote:

You know you’re privileged when you compare the Nazis to the AAC

totally. Or when these tough guys call someone racist online because they disagree with them. both sides of the coin on here

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

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

Help, help, you're being repressed? 

Whisk3rzz 1wrote:

I did check. Plenty of people have been thrown in jail for offensive words, from white supremacists, black supremacists, anti semites, and homophobes. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

Also, once again, why did you call me racist and a liar? If you knew me, you'd know racism, up there with hit-and-runs and rape, is once of the things that makes my blood boil and should come with legal sentences many would consider cruel

I suggest you reread this 10 year old article, the history of both Section 13 and criminal hatred in the Criminal Code, the background cases referenced in your old news article, and the players in the campaign for removal of Section 13 before you come back arguing these sentences were “cruel”. If you argue against anti-racist laws, don’t be surprised if people get the wrong impression. 

I climb for fun.

chris pwrote:

Help, help, you're being repressed? 

Yes, good job, you got the reference

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Yes, good job, you got the reference

Honestly I thought I was misremembering for a minute given that nobody else responded that way. 

landow 69wrote:

I climb for fun.

I used to climb instead of sex but now its just a hobby.

Hey, did you guys hear that the AAC has posted some guidelines for route name publishers? I don't mean to derail this fascinating thread, I know this news isn't relevant to what's going on here.  But for those who are interested, you can read more about it in this post: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/120513957/introducing-climb-united.

Didn’t read any of the other thought out posts in this thread but if I say ******* does half this thread now love me or if I say white ***** does the other half this thread like me? 

Trevor Taylorwrote:

Didn’t read any of the other thought out posts in this thread but if I say ******* does half this thread now love me or if I say white ***** does the other half this thread like me? 

Deep stuff bro

M Mwrote:

I used to climb instead of sex but now its just a hobby.

Which? Climbing? Sex?  Both?  Can't lose either way

FosterKwrote:

I suggest you reread this 10 year old article, the history of both Section 13 and criminal hatred in the Criminal Code, the background cases referenced in your old news article, and the players in the campaign for removal of Section 13 before you come back arguing these sentences were “cruel”. If you argue against anti-racist laws, don’t be surprised if people get the wrong impression. 

Dude. You can't read. I was arguing they SHOULD be cruel, and you're out here saying I should expect people to call me a racist for arguing that they shouldn't be cruel. If ur gunna call someone a racist at least read their post twice

Ben Silverwrote:

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

If it was only not publishing true racial/homophobic slurs, that would probably be accepted by most of us, but tons of stuff is getting thrown in that category that doesn't belong, and highly questionable theories like "white fragility"  and "intent doesn't matter at all, only if anyone feels "hurt" (even if it is not justified or said person is neurotic), "You have no say in this" etc. is getting shoved down our throats along with it. If anyone points out errors or disagreement with these theories or their efficacy towards uniting people, they are maligned as regressive bigots. I have had it implied repeatedly even though anyone who knows me personally would know that is far from the case and BS. That is the kind of thing that makes people say "Go fuck yourself", divides and cuts off communication. I have recently pretty much lost all interest in supporting access groups and LCOs who are getting all militant about these issues.

A lot of this is a result of people being lazy and looking for simple solutions to complex issues, like an algo to pick out "bad" words, or taking ills in wider society and overly seeing them in the climbing community. Despite a small number of gross examples, the reality is the climbing community at heart is a very inclusive group. That is one of the things I have always liked about it, climbing with all types and ages of people.  

M Spraguewrote:

If it was only not publishing true racial/homophobic slurs, that would probably be accepted by most of us, but tons of stuff is getting thrown in that category that doesn't belong, and highly questionable theories like "white fragility"  and "intent doesn't matter at all, only if anyone feels "hurt" (even if it is not justified or said person is neurotic), "You have no say in this" etc. is getting shoved down our throats along with it. If anyone points out errors or disagreement with these theories or their efficacy towards uniting people, they are maligned as regressive bigots. I have had it implied repeatedly even though anyone who knows me personally would know that is far from the case and BS. That is the kind of thing that makes people say "Go fuck yourself", divides and cuts off communication. I have recently pretty much lost all interest in supporting access groups and LCOs who are getting all militant about these issues.

Let's take a step away from the question of race in America for a minute. My guess is that, outside of that context, all us humans have some common lessons we've learned about dealing with 'things' generally. Like:

1) It doesn't matter who 'started it.'

2) Intentions matter for understanding the actor, but not for understanding the effect.

To go more in depth:

1) We all thought in grade school that if the other guy started it, that made us innocent. But sometime while growing up, we learned that we are responsible for our own actions. And if we hit someone because they 'made us,' that is still on us. I know Daniel was talking about 'they started it' a few posts back, but I suspect he meant it as a joke. As adults, in general day to day life, the question of who started it isn't useful as an excuse for bad behavior. We all know this. Pretending that is in this case suggests we are not really thinking things through when it comes to 'this case.'

2) If I run someone over in my car, my intentions will definitely matter in deciding what I'm charged with. They will not mean I didn't do it, or the other party isn't injured. We all know that accidents and unintended consequences occur, and as adults we know that it is still on us to try and remedy the effects we cause accidentally. Pretending that the question of whether a route name should be changed comes down to a question of the intent of the namer suggest that we are not thinking the question through. 

Now, I'm definitely not trying to get on your case. Your point that bad word lists are a weak tool is a good one. But, I also suspect that you already know point 1) and 2) above, and in your everyday life you live as if they are true. And yet, you wrote a post as if they were not true. That raises the question: why did you write that? 

(My guess is that it's not actually that you disagree with points 1 and 2 above, but rather because you feel that defending your 'side' is more important than behaving in accordance with things you believe to be true. More accurately, I think you've been convinced that it is 'OK' to behave like you don't believe 1 and 2 in order to defend your side. I don't blame you for doing that; you're not the only one doing it, and people are paying big money to convince you it's an OK thing to do. And, of course, it's kinda fun. But I am asking you, and everyone, to stop doing that and think things through regardless of 'sides.' But I dunno, you tell me why you posted as if you didn't believe 1 and 2 above.)