Who are these two idiots

Bill Schickwrote:

If you don't like the AF's position and resolution here, then you should act with consistency and stay away from all other areas the AF has worked out solutions to as well.  These intellectualized bat-shit gobbly-gook diatribes about religion and wtf ever are merely your personal excuses to act selfishly.  All you are telling us is that you aren't a part of the climbing community - which is fine - don't be - just go away.

Seriously not sure who’s gobbledygook Bill is railing against and who he wants to go away here….You could read it either way.  And maybe that’s a point in itself.  

Matthew Tangemanwrote:

Asinine analogy. But if another culture's beliefs had direct ties to *that land and specific place*, then maybe they would. Especially when that culture predates the U.S. by millennia, and especially if that culture has experienced genocide at the hands of the U.S. 

Playing devil's advocate for something like this is just trashy. Everyone's sense of entitlement in this discussion is like a modern manifest destiny mindset. Like seriously, Devil's Tower is the local crag for exactly no one in this thread, I would guess. Don't drive across the country to climb at this one specific spot for just 1/12 of the year. It's not that hard. 

It wasn't meant to be completely serious but still it is a bit thought provoking. It is also interesting that the responses always need to place such emphasis on past atrocities to make their point about how laws should work today. The Japanese did horrible things to my culture at one point in history but I don't see how that could ever give me a reason to ask the government to ask others to give special consideration to my religion.

I wouldn't drive to Devil's Tower just to climb at Devil's tower in June but I could think of situations were people are doing a summer trip with multiple stops and it works out that Devil's Tower is along the way. June is summer break for many people. I'm sure there are people that had only one chance to climb there but couldn't because their schedule coincided with the June closure.

By the way if you want an example of trashy, have you seen this?

It's not far from Joshua Tree and impossible to miss, especially at night. Don't worry about any closures. It's open 365 days a year!

I don't see what all the angst is about. The exchange is that we can't climb Devil's Tower in June, but we can climb the Capitol Building in January. It's a fair trade. 

OK, somebody on this site is a butthurt snowflake who complained when I posted, "Oh give it to the poor devils. They can put in a cablecar to the summit casino."

I am HARDLY anti-indian . It is called humor. It can't exist without a target, but it was anything but mean spirited. I have put up hundreds of routes. Some are highly thought of. If I can't be tolerated on this site for jocular banter I guess I need to find a replacement for all the PC heroes here.

Sheesh!

Ron Owrote:

OK, somebody on this site is a butthurt snowflake who complained when I posted, "Oh give it ..."

I am HARDLY anti-indian . It is called humor. It can't exist without a target, but it was anything but mean spirited. I have put up hundreds of routes. Some are highly thought of. If I can't be tolerated on this site for jocular banter I guess I need to find a replacement for all the PC heroes here.

Still not cool Ron. 

Consider this, it is possible to not intend to deride native peoples and yet use language and references that are effectively offensive in the image and stereotypes that those words evoke (ie: a person without racist intent can inadvertently use language that has a racist effect.) 

Should we allow the possible racist effect of those words to stand because the person who uttered them is not being intentional with the racist effect? and is it more important that the feelings and suffering of the person who used problematic language be respected or that the feelings of those who have actually suffered the historical stereotypes and racist framing of things be respected? 

Humor punches up, you break rule #1 when you punch down

If nothing else, we seem to have found out who the idiots are, although there may be more than two of us. :)

Ron Owrote:

OK, somebody on this site is a butthurt snowflake who complained when I posted, "Oh give it to the poor devils. They can put in a cablecar to the summit casino."

I am HARDLY anti-indian . It is called humor. It can't exist without a target, but it was anything but mean spirited. I have put up hundreds of routes. Some are highly thought of. If I can't be tolerated on this site for jocular banter I guess I need to find a replacement for all the PC heroes here.

Sheesh!

Ron - Humor is no longer permitted on MP.

Get with the times. 

Help, help, I'm being repressed! People don't like my tired old "jokes!" Don't they know I am owed a pity laugh? Stereotypes about groups have to be funny!

Jamila W wrote:

Actually caring about the possible effect of language upon others (while never saying every "other" will be effected or even care about the effect) - so virtuous!

This is just another explanation that some ethnicities have a privileged state in american society because of the historical and institutional oppression baked into the dominant ethos of the society and that they should want to have to err on the side of not adding to the daily reminders of those generations of tacit and blatant disregard for such a lived experience. 

"I’m in a group that has suffered from stereotyping and racism.  Massa will you bestow upon me the right to make a casino joke?" is what I would type if I confused pointing out the possible effect of words was the same as denying permission. Freedom isn't about saying what you want without consequence of those words, freedom is dealing with the knowledge of having the consequences pointed out and applying that knowledge to one's sense of self. 

Fixed it for you. 

Jamila W wrote:

Like how Kev implied that everyone who belongs to a certain group that’s “down” is too emotionally frail to take a joke?  Yeah that’s hilarious.  I want to know what other groups he considers beneath him and unworthy of “punching down.”  Let’s hear more from you old White guys about these superiority rankings.

Never said anyone was too frail to take a joke. 

You can check the history books for the "rankings" of institutional power in america. 

Jamila W wrote:

Like how Kev implied that everyone who belongs to a certain group that’s “down” is too emotionally frail to take a joke?  Yeah that’s hilarious.  I want to know what other groups he considers beneath him and unworthy of “punching down.”  Let’s hear more from you old White guys about these superiority rankings.

I mean sure, maybe if we pretend that social inequality doesn't exist now and never did, then poof! It'll just disappear. All we needed all along was to just believe really really hard.

But I suspect that anyone who doesn't think social equality works by Tinkerbell rules has probably heard which groups have more power/influence/money and which groups have less. But if you doesn't work, there's always googling.

In the non-make-believe world, it's generally not too cool to make fun of the folks with less. It's often not that funny to make fun of the folks with a lot either, but it doesn't have the added flavor of piling on.

Jamila W wrote:

Lived experience?  Mansplain to me some more about my Black American minority experience that you know so much about as a middle aged White guy

Not sure what you're hoping to find in a response and so not sure so how to give you what you want here. 

What it does feel like is that when I'm saying "take the possibility of an effect upon others and adjust accordingly (if one cares about how actions they affect others)" you're hearing "some people are too weak to stand up for themselves and so we need to coddle those people since they can't speak or act for themselves" And though I have trouble seeing the good-faith bridge between the intent and reception, I certainly recognize that interpreting what I was saying in that manner would create a negative and undesired effect. 

How would you have framed the language for the intent of "take the possibility of an effect upon others and adjust accordingly (if one cares about how actions they affect others)"  in order to prevent the pain of such a undesired effect?

Just read through all the comments, can I climb there tomorrow or no? Leaning on YES since the weather is shit in july but also thinking NO because I shared a black square on my insta last year and this is kind of an important month for oppressed user groups. Either way I don't plan on sharing any photos on social media til months later and I will be leaving out any hint of the date of my (likely) ascent.

JonasMRwrote:

I mean sure, maybe if we pretend that social inequality doesn't exist now and never did, then poof! It'll just disappear. All we needed all along was to just believe really really hard.

But I suspect that anyone who doesn't think social equality works by Tinkerbell rules has probably heard which groups have more power/influence/money and which groups have less. But if you doesn't work, there's always googling.

In the non-make-believe world, it's generally not too cool to make fun of the folks with less. It's often not that funny to make fun of the folks with a lot either, but it doesn't have the added flavor of piling on.

For somebody that claims to hate the fake culture war, you sure seem to love fighting it.

P.S. Idk who this "other" group is in your link but they are killing it. Good for them.

I bet most of you piss on the seat in public toilets, fail to put your shopping carts in the cart corral, and generally treat service workers like they are two thirds of a human.