Introducing Climb United

Colonel Mustardwrote:

He’s virtue signaling.

The virtue alarm is almost dead now

PWZwrote:

Any organization should represent the ideals of its members. 

How would they know those ideals if they don't ask the members?

By the way, you're not a member, so why are you weighing in?

Edit: Hit my post limit.

When you disagree with someone, resorting to name-calling is weak. It's a sign that you can't win on the merits.

FrankPSwrote:

By the way, you're not a member, so why are you weighing in?

I'm not the reactionary trashbag here arguing against people trying to make the world a tiny bit (edit)less(edit) rough for historically marginalized folks

AAC deals with Alpine.  How many routes ever published in the Journal are gonna get there name's changed?

Access Fund is lawyers and talk.  Arent hurtful names affecting access?  Seems like this issue should be tackled by the Access Fund, not the AAC.     

PWZwrote:

I'm not the reactionary trashbag here arguing against people trying to make the world a tiny bit rough for historically marginalized folks

Lol! Neither is Frank. Geez....

And maybe read what you wrote? Not quite what you meant to say??

H.

EDIT to add, if people actually read what the proposal says, it isn't just the AAC. It's a whole list of groups, including MP.

There's a survey attached too. Asking opinions. But that would require reading the proposal. Such a bother. 

Sigh. 

Old lady Hwrote:

.....EDIT to add, if people actually read what the proposal says...,There's a survey attached too. Asking opinions. But that would require reading the proposal. Such a bother. 

Sigh. 

Nail on the head.  

Although to be fair, most of us here would never stoop to providing opinions to those who asked or were interested, lol.  

Ben Silverwrote:

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.

Progressives whose existence is only justified by identity politics, who cherry-pick lines from posts and create their own context, ignoring reality and the other 98% of the comment, are the only thing better, buck.

And anyone whose head isn't firmly sphinctered knows there's no need to advocate for use of the n word... You can hear it in movies, music and on the street, most often from the people Climb United wants to protect.

Mike Graywrote:

Progressives whose existence is only justified by identity politics, who cherry-pick lines from posts and create their own context, ignoring reality and the other 98% of the comment, are the only thing better, buck.

And anyone whose head isn't firmly sphinctered knows there's no need to advocate for use of the n word... You can hear it in movies, music and on the street, most often from the people Climb United wants to protect.

As I said.

Old lady Hwrote:

Did anyone bother to actually read the proposals? 

We don't do that around here. Instead, we post irrelevant political opinions. 

I support the publisher's right to not publish. I do not support the bully pulpit ability to rename routes. If the FA or local climbers won't rename it, then the publisher can elect to simply not publish.

But as soon as the publisher strays into the realm of just renaming routes because they can, that publisher loses all of my respect and business. 

First they came for the route names. Then they micro chipped our b holes. Finally it was dinner time.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

I support the publisher's right to not publish. I do not support the bully pulpit ability to rename routes. If the FA or local climbers won't rename it, then the publisher can elect to simply not publish.

But as soon as the publisher strays into the realm of just renaming routes because they can, that publisher loses all of my respect and business. 

How do you feel about the naming system they would use if the FA is unwilling or unable to provide an alternative? It seems as neutral as possible while still acknowledging the FA. 

I think a publisher not publishing a route because of a name is worse "censorship" than renaming it by a standard process.

I think a publisher not publishing a route because of a name is worse "censorship" than renaming it by a standard process.

Choosing not to publish an offensive name is worse than renaming it and publishing it anyway? Not in my book it isn't.

Think about it like this: (an off route comparison, if you will forgive me): let's say I have a rental property and I want to list it on AirBnB. But I give my little rental property an asshole of a name that respectable people would not utter outloud.  I would never knowingly do that, btw nor would I name a climbing route like that. AirBnB just wouldn't list it. But they certainly wouldn't rename my property. Why? Their list is theirs, the name of my cottage is mine. It is not theirs to change.

Same for routes. The list belongs to MP, or any of the other publishers mentioned in the article. But none of those publishers owns the name to the routes and those names are not theirs to change. It is as simple as that.

A section of rock is not your property (unless it literally is your property). The name of a route is not the property of the FA - it's what they choose to call it. The rest of the climbing community can choose to call it something else. It's only because of a social contract that we agree not to call a piece of rock by a dozen different names and instead give preference to the FA. In return, its reasonable to expect that the FA abide by some norms when naming the route. Those norms are also allowed to change. Either way, the rest of the world can call that rock whatever it wants. 

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Choosing not to publish an offensive name is worse than renaming it and publishing it anyway? Not in my book it isn't.

Think about it like this: (an off route comparison, if you will forgive me): let's say I have a rental property and I want to list it on AirBnB. But I give my little rental property an asshole of a name that respectable people would not utter outloud.  I would never knowingly do that, btw nor would I name a climbing route like that. AirBnB just wouldn't list it. But they certainly wouldn't rename my property. Why? Their list is theirs, the name of my cottage is mine. It is not theirs to change.

Same for routes. The list belongs to MP, or any of the other publishers mentioned in the article. But none of those publishers owns the name to the routes and those names are not theirs to change. It is as simple as that.

I think we have a simple difference of opinions, and I hear your point. But what is someone, not just a publisher, to call a route if it's something they refuse to say?

All good, Big Red and M Alexander. Big Red - you're right about the individual not owning the name. (I knew my weak analogy would get blown out the water   ). However, I still think the publisher is a private business and does not represent the community either. My issue is with the publisher presuming to rename a route.

Another point you mentioned also resonated

It's only because of a social contract that we agree not to call a piece of rock by a dozen different names and instead give preference to the FA.

I agree. In some cases at least in my experience a route DOES go by multiple names and then I concede a publisher might play a role in helping us all to settle on one of those names. I've seen that play out too. But at the core its my belief the publisher should not be renaming anything. That is up to the FA and I concede, the community too. 

M Alexander, you can call it anything you want! I mean that. Its not like you're getting a revenue stream from it. I don't know about you but I climb at undocumented areas and even well documented, where I can't remember the name of some routes (they just won't stick in my brain) and so give them my own pet names. But that's more of a nickname than anything. Call it "Stupid racist asshole" if appropriate. Just don't go publishing it as if it was your duty and responsibility to do so, all the while collecting money for it.

You keep saying "publisher" when it's the guidebook author who has the first shot at this. They usually are quite familiar with an area, the people involved, the local issues and ethos, and may even be a developer themselves.

Decadent wall at City of Rocks has a bunch of very tongue in cheeky names. Some are softened in the 2016 guidebook. "Nipples..." for example. These are old, old routes, some of the earliest there. There is a huge amount of word play, none of it anything that twists this old lady's knickers one bit. 

My local stuff, also old routes? 

A lot of the names changed anyway. People still think they stumbled on a new route and claim the thing, lol! 

That AAC list of words didn't get into mere vulgarities, they stuck to slurs that have historically been aimed at particular groups. Big difference, to me, between that and just crude, at most, and word play that was irresistable to these guys 40 years ago. Sheesh.

Best, Helen

You keep saying "publisher" when it's the guidebook author who has the first shot at this.

I keep saying? Did you read the document? The first sentence:

The Climb United Route Name Task Force (RNTF), composed of a group of publishers and climbing community members, was gathered to build the best publishing practices to avoid harm caused by discriminatory or oppressive route names.

If you're still not convinced who is going to be doing the edits you can perhaps read the 2nd sentence of the document!

Participants in the working group include Alpinist Magazine, Climbing Magazine, the Climbing Zine, Gripped Magazine, Mountain Project, Mountaineers Books, Sharp End Publishing, and Wolverine Publishing.

All publishers.

Good day.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

All good, Big Red and M Alexander. Big Red - you're right about the individual not owning the name. (I knew my weak analogy would get blown out the water   ). However, I still think the publisher is a private business and does not represent the community either. My issue is with the publisher presuming to rename a route.

Another point you mentioned also resonated

I agree. In some cases at least in my experience a route DOES go by multiple names and then I concede a publisher might play a role in helping us all to settle on one of those names. I've seen that play out too. But at the core its my belief the publisher should not be renaming anything. That is up to the FA and I concede, the community too. 

I agree that the publisher doesn't represent the community but I don't think any entity does. The AAC, Access Fund, and local LCOs are the closest thing to it in my opinion, and many of them are on board with these guidelines. I suppose every offensive name can be voted on by the entire community but I think there's plenty of problems with that as well. In any case, the guidelines published here have a very generic-sounding placeholder for the route name after giving the FA a chance to rename: Crag, FA name, number. I don't think that qualifies as "renaming" in my opinion.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

I keep saying? Did you read the document? The first sentence:

If you're still not convinced who is going to be doing the edits you can perhaps read the 2nd sentence of the document!

All publishers.

Good day.

Lol! Fair enough. I do expect the authors to have first crack at this, as I know it's already happened.

Anyone sign up for the live discussion? Seems to me that qualifies as "our" opinions being sought out. Also that survey attached.

That wasn't aimed at you, exactly, Cherokee, more generic, but you are correct. 

My guess is an author would at least be contacted? And how often do guidebooks get "published" for actual print versions? The practical reality is this would largely happen online, "published" or not. Digital publishing would imply payment, and a contract of some sort, to me, versus user generated stuff like MP.

There's still lots of other stuff too, of course. Imagery, for one. The composition of boards, funding....all of it. I overlap with Title IX (remember before and after and what a huge flap that was) and date back to sports being pretty minimal for girls and women, bitd.

Glacial change...is still change. And glaciers don't reverse course.

;-)