Introducing Climb United

Creed Archibaldwrote:

This is a reasonable, thoughtful initiative. I support it.

Edit: To address Trevor’s concern above, I believe it said any name that “hurts” another person. That’s very different from a name that “offends” someone. 

If that was truly the standard, then the list would be empty.

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.

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.  

That is still not censorship.

And I don't care about what "anyone who knows [you] personally" thinks. When you call a very tame effort like this "militant," then white fragility is absolutely the correct assessment.

M Spraguewrote:

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.  

I think this is a bit of a straw man. Everyone in these threads who are exercising maturity in their dialogue are being respected - many concerns and comments have been brought up without people being upset.

HOWEVER - our country has a history of careless bigotry and racism. It is maddening to constantly deal with people who are looking to grind a political axe rather than to come to solutions. Look anywhere in this thread for whichever logical fallacy makes you the most annoyed. We are literally talking about PUBLISHING route names in guidebooks and standards there in, and there are comparisons to Nazi Germany and George Orwell. It is very clear that many people don't even want to hear the argument before the pitchforks are brought out.

You are very much responsible for your action and what you say. If your intent is to defend the indefensible, you will probably be dragged through the mud for it - the social price for being ignorant. This isn't just true in this context, but every context - it is a conversation with heightened intensity so it is best to leave the snark, the bad comparisons and the veiled bigotry out of your arguments if you want them to be heard.

As I said in the second post - it is still a free country, you can put up whatever hateful routes you want. Guidebook companies just won't publish it - a true horror story ending, to not have your route published.

Lastly, you mentioned "That is one of the things I have always liked about it, climbing with all types and ages of people."
Maybe listen to those people.

A lot of you really don't read very well and add all kinds of stuff from your own biases into your interpretations. It makes it really hard to have a constructive conversation.. If I take the time to spell everything out in minutia you wouldn't read it all anyway or you ignore the parts that counter the image you are in love with. Some of you are just down right tools and aren't worth the time.

M Spraguewrote:

A lot of you really don't read very well and add all kinds of stuff from your own biases into your interpretations. It makes it really hard to have a constructive conversation.. If I take the time to spell everything out in minutia you wouldn't read it all anyway or you ignore the parts that counter the image you are in love with. Some of you are just down right tools and aren't worth the time.

Welcome to MP

M Spraguewrote:

A lot of you really don't read very well and add all kinds of stuff from your own biases into your interpretations. It makes it really hard to have a constructive conversation.. If I take the time to spell everything out in minutia you wouldn't read it all anyway or you ignore the parts that counter the image you are in love with. Some of you are just down right tools and aren't worth the time.

Well, alright. I tried

 To Jonas:

3) Your guess was incorrect, . I am a little curious why you would ascribe those reasons to me though.

1) I am not quite sure why you are bringing up the “You started it” issue in this context.

2)My contention is there is a legit spectrum of balance points of intent vs effect with names. One can come up with examples where one might out weigh the other, your car example, for instance (pretty extreme effect vs most route names). We are not going to all agree on where the best balance point of intent vs effect is going to be in a particular instance or the value of what someone is trying to say with their name (especially if somebody doesn’t understand or is unfamiliar with another meaning of a word or expression). That is part of the art of naming a route.

General discussion:

I am not sure where the idea of route names having to be all pleasant and smiley came from. (I’m speaking more of references to unpleasant historical events etc. not outright slurs.) It is not a perfect analogy, but would we be better if there were never paintings like Guernica or books about horrible events because they may arouse uncomfortable feelings. Names can also be used metaphorically and not intend at all to reference all the particulars of the event. It gets towards a state of idiocracy if people can’t allow for the difference. Advocates of the approach of Climb United are using a dumbed down method that is not effective and has lots of negative side effects. There are some positive methods like contacting the FA, finding out their intent in the name and seeing if they can/ would like to come up with a better one, and public discussion of the effects of a thoughtless name, but the proscriptive parts are over done, and yes it does end up being effectively censorship.

M Spraguewrote:

I am not sure where the idea of route names having to be all pleasant and smiley came from. (I’m speaking more of references to unpleasant historical events etc. not outright slurs.) It is not a perfect analogy, but would we be better if there were never paintings like Guernica or books about horrible events because they may arouse uncomfortable feelings. Names can also be used metaphorically and not intendi at all to reference all the particulars of the event. It gets towards a state of idiocracy if people can’t allow for the difference. Advocates of the approach of Climb United are using a dumbed down method that is not effective and has lots of negative side effects. There are some positive methods like contacting the FA, finding out there intent in the name and seeing if they can/ would like to come up with a better one, and public discussion of the effects of a thoughtless name, but the proscriptive parts are over done.

I think that it would be a good idea to contact the First Ascensionists to figure out what they intended for their route - there was a climb called Whipping Post that followed exactly this, the FAists were contacted and were in favor of changing the name.

Maybe I'm being trite, but I find great pieces of literature and route names kind of different. I feel you might be ascribing too much weight to route names? Which hypothetical routes are you discussing?

As has been the case with this topic, there is fear that there might be some ambiguous route name that is just barely a slur or hateful word but either not intended or in the wrong context... can anyone come up with said routes? I'm sure there are a ton. Let's find out exactly what this initiative will cost us, rather than speculate on hypothetical climbs.

Greg Daviswrote:

I think that it would be a good idea to contact the First Ascensionists to figure out what they intended for their route - there was a climb called Whipping Post that followed exactly this, the FAists were contacted and were in favor of changing the name.

Maybe I'm being trite, but I find great pieces of literature and route names kind of different. I feel you might be ascribing too much weight to route names? Which hypothetical routes are you discussing?

As has been the case with this topic, there is fear that there might be some ambiguous route name that is just barely a slur or hateful word but either not intended or in the wrong context... can anyone come up with said routes? I'm sure there are a ton. Let's find out exactly what this initiative will cost us, rather than speculate on hypothetical climbs.

I think you are correct that we have to look at specific cases but then we have the problem of choosing the cases to even consider. Which First Ascensionists would you contact and then who judges their response? Does the AAC have a committee that does this? Or are they just going to ban any route that has a name with the words on the list?

This does sound a little like the Huckleberry Finn debate where people want to ban a book because of a word in the book, which I think is ridiculous because everyone knows the book is opposed to racism.

M Spraguewrote:

 To Jonas:

1) I am not quite sure why you are bringing up the “You started it” issue in this context

You spent an entire paragraph explaining that your viewpoint was radicalized by 'them.' That is laying responsibility for your words and actions at someone else's feet. Even if that is truly the cause (and I suspect it somewhat is), that does not make it 'their' fault. You remain responsible for your thoughts and actions. What is more, I think you agree that you are responsible for your thoughts and actions.

2)My contention is there is a legit spectrum of balance points of intent vs effect with names. One can come up with examples where one might out weigh the other, your car example, for instance (pretty extreme effect vs most route names). We are not going to all agree on where the best balance point of intent vs effect is going to be in a particular instance or the value of what someone is trying to say with their name (especially if somebody doesn’t understand or is unfamiliar with another meaning of a word or expression). That is part of the art of naming a route.

If I am hurting you by standing on your toe, do I stay there and debate with you whether or not I intended to stand on your toe? Or do I first get off and apologize? After that, we can definitely talk about my intent, and whether it reflects poorly on me or not. If we want to decide how much blame is to be placed, than definitely there is a question of intention. But to decide whether the harm should continue, there is not. What is more, I suspect you are entirely aware of this in your day to day activities. 

3) Your guess was incorrect, . I am a little curious why you would ascribe those reasons to me though.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you believe that you are responsible for your actions, and that you try to avoid doing harm. It is possible I'm wrong about that, but most people agree about those basic principles. Yet, you are choosing to argue as if you did not believe in those principles. That is why I suspected your reasoning was 'side' oriented. I am interested in hearing another explanation, if you would like to offer one. 

It seems utterly inconsistent to me that one can on the one hand say "freedom of expression! I can say whatever the hell I want!" while in the other hand deny the right of publisher to exercise the same freedom. E.g. if they want to decide they don't want to publish as is some route names, it is their right.

That being said, I do feel somewhat like one comment Sprague made. Considering that the intent is nothing and that only the claim of offense matters makes me want to tune out of that process rather than support it.

Jonas, the feeling I get from all this is that if someone, somewhere doesn't like a word or a comment or an image, then it instantly becomes unacceptable. I'm sure in 80% of the stuff most people agree. We're all somewhat sensible and don't want to be jerks. But then MAYBE sometimes, the person feeling hurt by something has work to do. MAYBE one can both be genuinely offended, and wrong to feel offended.

Franck Veewrote:

Jonas, the feeling I get from all this is that if someone, somewhere doesn't like a word or a comment or an image, then it instantly becomes unacceptable. I'm sure in 80% of the stuff most people agree. We're all somewhat sensible and don't want to be jerks. But then MAYBE sometimes, the person feeling hurt by something has work to do. MAYBE one can both be genuinely offended, and wrong to feel offended.

I hear you. I think a lot of people feel like getting redacted is the same thing as someone saying 'this is wrong.' I don't think that feeling is accurate to the situation, though.

Let's say you posted a picture of someone being run over by a tank. And then a website took that picture down. It feels like the website is telling your your picture is bad, and maybe even you're bad for posting it. But what if the website is just saying, 'pictures of tanks squashing people will lead to fewer people on our website.' That doesn't mean your tank picture is 'bad' or that you're 'bad.' Seems like the same thing with a redacted name. The developer isn't necessarily a bad person. It's just that other people don't want to say the name they put on a route.

I'm also not sure what it would mean to be 'wrong' to be offended anymore than I am clear what it would mean to be 'wrong' to be happy or cold.

Franck Veewrote:

It seems utterly inconsistent to me that one can on the one hand say "freedom of expression! I can say whatever the hell I want!" while in the other hand deny the right of publisher to exercise the same freedom. E.g. if they want to decide they don't want to publish as is some route names, it is their right.

That being said, I do feel somewhat like one comment Sprague made. Considering that the intent is nothing and that only the claim of offense matters makes me want to tune out of that process rather than support it.

Here's the thing: it's not that intent doesn't matter. You aren't being canceled for a route name that you did not intend as offensive. It's about what you do once you're told by a marginalized group that it IS offensive. If you say "oh shoot, I'm sorry I didn't realize that, let's change it," no one is going to jump down your throat.

Did anyone bother to actually read the proposals? Yes, a list of words. 

But there was also a very long protocol of how to proceed. 

Top of that list?

Ask the FA.

And a whole lot more, including preserving the history of the route.

Personally? I didn't see a whole lot to object to, but hey, have fun with them pitchforks. 

Route names being in a guidebook are the choice of the guidebook author. Entire areas being in a guidebook are the choice of the author. They can leave stuff in, without a name, use a modified name, whatever they choose. Dave Bingham did exactly this with his "new" City of Rocks guidebook. Clear back in 2016. Hanging on to the history, the stories, including the bad behaviour, is all part of a really good guide, imo. And, AAC has provisions to do that, hang on to the history. Work with the FA, etc.

This is a tempest in a teapot. AAC is doing a small thing. Whoopee. Yay. Here's your Nobel prize, eh? As others have said, there are bigger fish to fry, but it also is more than nothing.

Historical footnote: I read "Little Black Sambo" out loud, to my second grade class. Stuff does change....glacially, sometimes, but it does.

Best, Helen

EDIT to add, a whole heck of a lot of these names are old, outdated, and even the FAs may not be real excited to defend the "humor" of forty years ago.

JonasMRwrote:

I'm also not sure what it would mean to be 'wrong' to be offended anymore than I am clear what it would mean to be 'wrong' to be happy or cold.

We all have our baggage. Sometimes we can be uneasy with things due to it. I do not think it is necessarily the world's job to deal with it for us in all cases - sometimes the balanced reaction would be to work on oneself instead.

Say the incel thing - is it to woman all over to deal with the fact some man is a frustrated celibate? Or perhaps is it more to that man to deal with his behavior/perception/relationship with woman? Clearly making fun of a guy for being unpopular with woman is a being a jerk, and I'd support removing a post that does that. Yet clearly that guy could genuinely be offended/pissed by things because he has a broken relationship with woman in general. I would argue that some here felt offended by the creation of the woman's forum, or at least the arguments when that was done sure make it feel that way. Not saying all those arguing against the forum were incels. But clearly, one can genuinely feel offended (e.g. he is broken in that respect), yet one probably isn't right to be. That feeling of being offended, or feeling uneasy about something, is the mind's way to tell oneself that something is wrong. That can something can be externel, or internal. Likely the best answer in each case is different. Yet we currently act as if the cause is always external, and as is the answer is always to change the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/technology/racist-computer-engineering-terms-ietf.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage

I like soft crux.

Who can name a more cynical example of corporate virtue signaling?

MLB with the All Star game?