Discuss - Addressing Offensive Climbing Route Names on Mountain Project

LL2wrote:

I think M Montoya has it right: "This is all just like trying to ban dirty comedians. Route names have always had a bit of comedy, irony and just a play on words. The best comedians in my lifetime have offended many people and made many laugh. Is the next step banning comedy? Where does it end, once we reach Utopia?"

I was going to name a route "The Ring Pirate's Revenge". The route had a dreadful low percentage crux involving a thread two finger move that was particularly brutal on the ring finger. A lot of people would try it once and decide they didn't care enough to do it because the move was so heinous. I thought it would make for a few laughs and was pretty descriptive of the route. You're telling people what the routes are and you mention the name. Someone says "I think I'll pass on that one" just based on the name. I respond with "Yeah it's not for everyone." A true summation of the route and hopefully a good laugh at the same time. My friends know my sexuality has been kind of fluid and changing over time, so they in particular appreciate the humor. It doesn't offend me. It may offend some of my brothers and sisters.

Can't we all laugh a little at ourselves?

We have to laugh at ourselves because laughing at others is no longer acceptable.

Parachute Adamswrote:

We have to laugh at ourselves because laughing at others is no longer acceptable.

Laughing is offensive, people get their feelings hurt by it all the time.

How many times do I have to tell you guys, this is all about season 8 of Game of Thrones. I can't believe you all liked it the way it was, shame on you.

Seriously though, what is all this 'what if' and 'slippery slope' nonsense? It's almost as bad as pretending this is about something else, like comedy or culture wars or whatever. 'Ring Pirate' appears to be OK by the AAC. By the old MP algorithm, if someone was put off by that name, could you come up with a more clever name? I reckon you could. But again, none of that is happening! 

What if every time someone printed the n word, a child was cured of cancer? Huh, what if then? I mean, I think that would be a very different discussion. About a different world we don't live in. But it wouldn't have much to do with the question before us, would it?

Hold on, I'm confused.  Offensive names have been part of climbing and route naming for decades, often by the fringes of society, and climbers both past and present are overwhelmingly leftist.  And somehow, offensive names are Trump supporters' fault?

That's a good one.

Personally, I believe there is a need to have a process for renaming a route or area. For example, we don’t have to go very far back in time to get to posts vowing to name the next route as offensively as possible. Those posts only amplified the need for a process.

“Who has the authority?”

Some keep pointing at the Climb United Principles and Guidelines (linked; currently in draft form). In that, I don’t have an issue with Publishers being the enforcers. I do object to Publishers also being the decider about what is offensive, the timer on how long the community has to respond, as well as the re-namer (no matter how much time is put into the impossible task of standardizing).

Kinda like when one person was the cop, judge, jury and executioner.  Some room there for abuse.  Also, that is about as far removed from the “community” as one can imagine - that being the point at which an Author (not the FAists) submits a body of work to a Publisher.

Epicurious no longer publishing recipes with beef 'to encourage more sustainable cooking'

^ Some food for thought, no pun intended.

Are there parallels to the topic of this thread? Are there differences?

Bill Lawrywrote:

Some keep pointing at the Climb United Principles and Guidelines (linked; currently in draft form). In that, I don’t have an issue with Publishers being the enforcers. I do object to Publishers also being the decider about what is offensive, the timer on how long the community has to respond, as well as the re-namer (no matter how much time is put into the impossible task of standardizing).

When epicurious doesn't publish steak recipes, does that mean steaks cease to exist? Are they 'enforcing' anything? Are they 'deciding' anything for other people? 

I believe that you are too thoughtful a person to believe that a guidebook changing the name they print changes the name of the route. I think you've brought up some good points before now, and would suggest we go back to discussing those in greater detail. This idea that anyone is unilaterally changing names seems like a move away from reasonable discussion and toward rhetoric. 

JonasMRwrote:

This idea that anyone is unilaterally changing names seems like a move away from discussion and toward rhetoric. 

My comment is about the process. And under the current draft guideline, yes, the Publisher can unilaterally change the name in a generic way. See process (edit: regarding “timeline”).

Bill Lawrywrote:

My comment is about the process. And under the current draft guideline, yes, the Publisher can unilaterally change the name in a generic way. See process (edit: regarding “timeline”).

Does changing the name they publish change the name? Do you honestly think that what a publisher publishes changes the name of a route? Are you really sure that is your belief about how linguistics and names work? 

I'm pretty sure you know that if the community believes a name is one thing, and publisher writes something else, the name has not been changed. The publisher just wrote a different name. Right? 

JonasMRwrote:

I'm pretty sure you know that if the community believes a name is one thing, and publisher writes something else, the name has not been changed. The publisher just wrote a different name. Right? 

I wonder how many remember the history of the route “Stichter Quits”. I don’t recall the name John Long would have given it ... despite his nefarious FA of it.

Also, I doubt a Publisher came up with the name “Stichter Quits” ... more likely it came from the community which is what I would prefer to encourage in any Principles and Guidelines - more so than the current draft does. And leaving the timeline strictly up to the Publisher doesn’t wash.

Edit: I’d rather have a process that actually maximizes the time for the community to recognize a name is offensive and so rename it before a Publisher does it.

Yes, anoint the publishers with the role of enforcer. But proactively guide the rest to the FAist and / or  community as much as much as practical. 

Bill Lawrywrote:

Edit: I’d rather have a process that actually maximizes the time for the community to recognize a name is offensive and so rename it before a Publisher does it.

Yes, anoint the publishers with the role of enforcer. But proactively guide the rest to the FAist and / or  community as much as much as practical. 

So, to review, you're on board with the parts of the Climb United plan where the publisher tries to go back to the FAist if available, or their partner/family/etc if they are not. But dislike the part that addresses what happens when the still cannot come to a resolution? Is there a better resolution for 'step 3' (after they've contacted the FAist or 'next of kin' without resolution) that you have in mind? 

Additionally, we are agreed that in the end the community will always decide the name, right? Whatever a publisher writes, the name will still be what climbers actually say.

Here's how Communal route naming shall proceed and progress:

Someone/thing (pronouns) will determine that  All Wypippo are illegitimate route namers because the Conquered V Stolen Land argument will lead to the inescapable position of privilege equals exclusion. 

Then the First Nation folk shall mobilize and declare every significant rock in North America off limits as sacred, because they are.

Simultaneously, rock climbing itself will be decried as a racist, privileged, supremacist activity ( because that is literally what it is). And therefore none of the liberal woke climbers engaged in CRT, 3rd WV Femdom, Climate Justice, Reparations, Etc etc etc, shall be allowed access without the adequate documentation from the Central Sructinizers you so willingly and happily vote to rule over you.

Meanwhile, those of us in the Positive Anarchy Community that have foreseen this coming wave of bullshit and actually developed human relations with native communities shall engage with our brothers and stroll on past the lamenting Progressives crying in their old and busted Prius' in the trailhead parking lot.

Why: because we understand that life is actually the human interaction of individuals to other individuals and we reject this cultish idea pumped into your brains that the Collective is more important than the Individual (fuck you Mr. Spock). 

Quit being a tool of the elite and falling for their intentionally tribal divisive bullshit.

To the subject currently on the table: this means rejecting a Collective effort for changing vulgar route names and instead persuading people to not be assholes or risk a punch in the mouth. Not relegating the uncomfortable task of actual engagement to a pretend authority because yoy are too meek to do it yourself. 

JonasMRwrote:So, to review, you're on board with the parts of the Climb United plan where the publisher tries to go back to the FAist if available, or their partner/family/etc if they are not. But dislike the part that addresses what happens when the still cannot come to a resolution? Is there a better resolution for 'step 3' (after they've contacted the FAist or 'next of kin' without resolution) that you have in mind? 

These are good questions.  The answer is not simple.  One might even consider Zippy's suggestion above.  Still ...

First, let me say that the Publisher asking for a renaming can be prioritized like an onion as to who provides the alternate name.  The FAist is at the center.  The Publisher is completely excluded.  In between and working outward, there are Partners of the FAist, the Local-Crag climbing community, the Next-Level climbing area continuing outward to an area having a lot of routes (e.g., 100?).  There is no time limit at any layer except at the discretion of the Publisher.

Second, I disagree with more than half of what Climb United Process is about.   It is probably easier to talk in terms of what I would prefer. I'll list that without any justification.

• Publishers do not decide what is offensive.  The community publicly informs Publishers (a tiny bit more on that later). And Publishers can publicly ask the community when the community hasn't already informed about a name.
• In any conflict between a Publisher and the community, the Publisher simply excludes the route from the body of work subject to the author's agreement. If the author disagrees, the author's body of work is not published.
• Any fallout from the above is not binding (i.e., it can change during the next publication).

  Additionally, we are agreed that in the end the community will always decide the name, right? Whatever a publisher writes, the name will still be what climbers actually say.

I agree with you.

I'll add as well, there is much to be explored in the area of how Publishers will interact with Community in the above. It is not insurmountable if there is consensus.

I could get behind something like what Bill Lawry proposes.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

I could get behind something like what Bill Lawry proposes.

Thanks.  And I bolded "something like" because you obviously know there is still much that needs to be worked out to reach an alternative for an overall plan.   But maybe it is a beginning at something better.  Let the community be the judge.

Bill Lawrywrote:

• Publishers do not decide what is offensive.  The community publicly informs Publishers (a tiny bit more on that later). 

I disagree with this assertion. Publishers are the interface between producers and consumers.

Route creators are the producers. Without them there is nothing to publish.

Route users are the consumers. Without thier purchases the publisher goes broke and quits.

It is in the publisher's highest motivation to present a marketable product. Ergo, they are the interface between the Invisible Hand and The Market. It is specifically at the publisher that common sense and universal decency are integrated into the process. 

Call a route Dirty Sanchez and the guidebook author will censor/rename in xe's/xer's personal (individual) interests. 

The Collective is an Abstract. We are born as individuals, and we die as such. Alone.

Bill Lawrywrote:

Epicurious no longer publishing recipes with beef 'to encourage more sustainable cooking'

^ Some food for thought, no pun intended.

Are there parallels to the topic of this thread? Are there differences?

People still think cows are causing climate change?? Come on people

Nick Niebuhrwrote:

People still think cows are causing climate change?? Come on people

Pppphbt - you're not even attempting to answer the questions.  :)  You're off route, Nick.

Post-limit edit 8 hours later (the 3 who gave a thumbs up may of course reconsider):

Zippy The Pinhead wrote:

I disagree with this assertion. Publishers are the interface between producers and consumers.

...

It is in the publisher's highest motivation to present a marketable product. Ergo, they are the interface between the Invisible Hand and The Market. It is specifically at the publisher that common sense and universal decency are integrated into the process.

About determining offensive route names ...

I would prohibit profit from being the driver of whether a name should be labeled as offensive. Too weak because it favors the majority over the individual.  And I do not hold a Publisher’s opinion over that of a Community.   Actually, a Publisher will be prone to miss things that a Community will not.

If a Publisher disagrees with the community’s opinion, the Publisher can lobby the community to rethink whether a name is offensive - just like anyone else. And the Publisher might rethink whether they have some other agenda than inclusiveness.

(Admittedly, I have not defined the “lobbying”  part of the process.)

Once a name is labeled as offensive by the community ...

It is going to be renamed.  Because the onion process does not let an individual stand in the way of a renaming.  Online Publishers would redact the offensive name while the onion process is taking place.  Book and online Publishers will very rarely need to delete a route from the Author’s body of work.

Bill Lawrywrote:

Pppphbt - you're not even attempting to answer the questions.  :)  You're off route, Nick.

Ah I took the bait! Too easy

Bill Lawrywrote:

I would prohibit profit from being the driver of whether a name should be labeled as offensive. 

I'm not prone to hyperbole, but "prohibiting profit" is literally tyranny. That's how Stalin/Mao/Castro/Sanders operated (albeit thankfully Sanders never got the chance). Are you a Tankie?

And the Publisher might rethink whether they have some other agenda than inclusiveness.

The Publisher's agenda is to sell (or altruistically distribute for free, but in that case the quality always sucks. You get what you pay for) books describing the routes. Should the Publisher choose to focus on inclusiveness, then the Market will decide if the document is well distributed. Same goes for the Publisher's degree of inclusion of vulgar or offensive terms. 

That is how you get "Muh Communitee" to define acceptable standards.

Your narrative implies a Top-Down approach, dictating to Publishers what they can or can not include. The problem with Communal Authority is that there is no way to prevent sociopaths attracted to power to staking the claim of Communal Leader(s). No matter what you call the assembly, it will always require individuals to head up, organize, and communicate the will of the Collective. Inevitably, and invariably, these individuals become the Collective themselves, they will take it over. Be it an HOA, School Board, County Commissioners, Politburo or Congress, individuals always dominate the process while claiming Authority has been granted to them. It is morally and ethically repugnant and even worse functions as an evolutionary roadblock to keep us all fenced in so the Power Elite can hold their positions.

My way:

Climber: I really wish I had a guide for this area.

Publisher: I have created one.

Climber: Why are all these routes using the N-word listed here? It makes me ill.

Publisher: That's what xxxxxxxx named them.

Climber: Well, I'm not buying this. And tell xxxxxx he's a total asshole. In fact, I will let everyone know he's an asshole, and his business will likely suffer too.

Publisher: Would you buy it if I redact/change the names?

Climber: Absolutely. 

See how easy that is? We can do this in every avenue in life. You want something, I provide it, we have a transaction. No need for Authority to impose itself and announce "Now wait a goddamned minute, we must approve of and interfere and take our cut of this transaction or we will wield Authority upon your head"