Discuss - Addressing Offensive Climbing Route Names on Mountain Project

Huh, seems like most of the world's issues can be addressed by individuals having polite conversations! If only we'd thought of that...

Wait, wait, wait. Zippy, are you saying that the market will decide? I can't think of any other issue or need that has been taken care of by...muh muh markets. 

Claudine Longet wrote:

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.

I think we should start a thread listing the XXXXXX assholes.  Each FA who named the route gets one point per offensive name used.

For example:
Ivan Greene: 1 Point (Sweat of a Rapists)
David Engel: 1 Point (Mein Kampf)

FA's can get an extra point if they refuse to change the clearly offensive name.

Gumby King wrote:

I think we should start a thread listing the XXXXXX assholes.  Each FA who named the route gets one point per offensive name used.

For example:
Ivan Greene: 1 Point (Sweat of a Rapists)
David Engel: 1 Point (Mein Kampf)

FA's can get an extra point if they refuse to change the clearly offensive name.

I think you just made the point that most climbers are entitled white racists just sharing their "authentic self".
Maybe Mountain Project is an extension of that problem? 

Claudine Longet wrote:

I'm not prone to hyperbole,...

Ha ha! Is funny because opposite is true!

Seriously though, your last post was like 50% of the way to being relevant to the discussion at hand. Big +1 from me; it's great to see you starting to approach the conversation, instead of just posting 'political' ramblings. Awesome; and looking forward to more like it.

Bill Lawry wrote:

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.

It sounds like the current Climb United plan has the first few layers of your 'onion.' I'm not sure who would represent the 100+ routes nearest this or that route, or why they'd be more 'on my side' than some other rando. But I suppose in that case I'm dead and so is my partner, so I couldn't care one way or the other.

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).

1) Except Climb United is about Publishers NOT deciding what it offensive. It's about skirting that issue by having some oversimplified AAC list.

2) Seems fair. But I'm unclear why publishers would ever sign on to this. Right now, if there is a climb on some public rock somewhere, they have every right to mention that fact. If they're going to give that up, what are they getting in return? Or is this one that you're going in to enforce using the usual cancel culture stick (and schtick)?

3) Also seems reasonable.

I dunno, I think I'm kind of with Zippy on this one. I suspect the market will decide this. If they want to sell books to more people, they'll probably remove names that piss people off. And laying the 'responsibility' at the feet of a group like the AAC and their lazy-ass list of no-no words seems like the cheapest cop-out available. I can't see getting worked up enough about this to get some 'cancel all guidebooks that won't say the n word' movement going, but I'm terrible at predicting what takes off. If that works, then maybe there's some leverage there to work with.

Can we rename dirtbags to cleanbags once the new language is in place?

Yes, Zippy, we could just let transactions guide the current effort ... let consumers speak with their wallets and the capitalist be guided by their quarterly bottom line.   Its' an option.  But there are others that are more targeted and on topic.  Whatever guideline comes about should keep the market in mind by not hindering transactions ... too much. My ending paragraph in this post relates.

JonasMR wrote:

It sounds like the current Climb United plan has the first few layers of your 'onion.' I'm not sure who would represent the 100+ routes nearest this or that route, or why they'd be more 'on my side' than some other rando. But I suppose in that case I'm dead and so is my partner, so I couldn't care one way or the other.

Yes - their draft plan does have an onion approach.  Though last time I checked, the "Process" part of the guidelines only mentions the FAist:  "If the FA is unavailable or unwilling to provide a new name, The publisher can choose to replace the route name with an easily replicated method ..." and we know there will be cases where the FAist isn't reachable / has passed.  Still, I vaguely recall more "layers" than that in their draft guidelines.

(Italicized quotes in this post are from today's draft Guideline.)

JonasMR wrote:

1) Except Climb United is about Publishers NOT deciding what it offensive. It's about skirting that issue by having some oversimplified AAC list.

About the list ....

Advocates of the list would agree that it is woefully inadequate, or would be easily convinced it is so.  Climb United agrees: "The provided list is non-exhaustive and subject to review and change. "  It'll never be complete because politics / religious and political topics / personal preference / etc. - as expressed in human language - are constantly evolving around " ethnicity, nationality, sexual identity, gender identity, and ability ".

Cimb United also knows that any future list will not always have the answer about offensiveness.  For that, the guideline defers to the Publishes:  "Publishers are encouraged to use discretion and engage with the RNTF, Director of Climb United, and colleagues with questions. "  The first couple definitions of "discretion" from Merriam-Webster: a) individual choice or b) judgment and power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds.  And Climb United does no include the Community regarding where answers might be.

The above is not necessarily meant to criticize; their’s is indeed an effort to be transparent and to allow public input to the list.  It is just that the list will only ever be an aid and not end-all to what can be determined to be offensive. It can't be more than that.  Judging from what it is now, it'll have only things that are virtually undebatable for the generic majority ... which is insufficient IMHO.

Still, I think there will probably be a need for someone to maintain a list.

JonasMR wrote:

2) Seems fair. But I'm unclear why publishers would ever sign on to this. Right now, if there is a climb on some public rock somewhere, they have every right to mention that fact. If they're going to give that up, what are they getting in return? Or is this one that you're going in to enforce using the usual cancel culture stick (and schtick)?

("2" was the part of my proposal that conflicts between the Publisher and Community could only result in exclusion of the route from the route resource or result in rejecting the authors body of work.)

Yeah - there is no control over what Publishers choose to sign up to and what they will not.  I suspect that for even the current AAC draft guidelines, some Publishers won't sign up and instead will publish whatever route names they are given.  The free market works that way as we know.  If there is demand, someone will sell it. 

"2" is just part of an alternate guideline.  And I use "guideline" in a looser sense - not rules that must be followed.  I have no designs on the latter.

More generally, we've been talking about what should be the Publishers involvement in terms of offensive route names. I'd prefer to limit it to just being the Enforcer. But if there is withering pushback, I'd default to keep their involvement to where it has always been ... except with more available help ... much more and as far in advance as possible from the Community ... in terms of a) deciding what is offensive and b) renaming offensive names while addressing those separately.

A good process shouldn't wait until an author submits a body of work to a book Publisher or wait much beyond that first posting of the FA on an online site. AAC’s draft attempts that to a degree. But their process has limitations because Publishers are not the Community.

Edit: My 100 route threshold was just an example that is also subject to debate.  And it only applied to the process of assigning an alternate name; In this case, maybe 100 is just a minimum.  Anyway, before the renaming process, a different process is used by the Community to decide if a name is offensive.

Russ Walling wrote:

AAC = lol

gtfo

I have to imagine the AAC will cease to exist in 10 years. They went from being for climbers and having a purpose to being a false XP badge you could purchase for relatively cheap. Could you imagine being someone offended by the route name Soup Nazi and getting the AAC publication in the mail showing exploits in the Himalayas or Patagonia. -Those are two different worlds.

Tom Sherman wrote:

I have to imagine the AAC will cease to exist in 10 years. They went from being for climbers and having a purpose to being a false XP badge you could purchase for relatively cheap. Could you imagine being someone offended by the route name Soup Nazi and getting the AAC publication in the mail showing exploits in the Himalayas or Patagonia. -Those are two different worlds.

The AF is losing me as well, their newest fundraiser includes an opportunity to win a vansion!!! Oh boy! Does it come with a lifetime of AF t-shirts and stickers?

Bill Lawry wrote:

Yes - their draft plan does have an onion approach.  Though last time I checked, the "Process" part of the guidelines only mentions the FAist:  "If the FA is unavailable or unwilling to provide a new name, The publisher can choose to replace the route name with an easily replicated method ..." and we know there will be cases where the FAist isn't reachable / has passed.  Still, I vaguely recall more "layers" than that in their draft guidelines.

(Italicized quotes in this post are from today's draft Guideline.)

I think the bit about the onion layers in case the FAist is dead. Section 1.3.1. It is a good point that 'unavailable' does seem a little open to interpretation. Like they didn't return a call in 3-5 business days? Or like they're living off the grid in Alaska and no one has seem them in a few years?

("2" was the part of my proposal that conflicts between the Publisher and Community could only result in exclusion of the route from the route resource or result in rejecting the authors body of work.)

While fair, I think we also have to remember that we don't know what the community thinks in most all cases. Would the will of the community be based on an online poll, that would be flooded with internet busybodies? Most of the community doesn't really care most of the time. (Naturally it seems different on the forums, because only the few people who care are bothering to post.) It seems like telling apart which names the community agrees with and which they don't is difficult to impossible.

More generally, we've been talking about what should be the Publishers involvement in terms of offensive route names. I'd prefer to limit it to just being the Enforcer. But if there is withering pushback, I'd default to keep their involvement to where it has always been ... except with more available help ... much more and as far in advance as possible from the Community ... in terms of a) deciding what is offensive and b) renaming offensive names while addressing those separately.

That's mostly what Climb United does as well. There is the clause for 'discretion,' since the list is a blunt tool. But it seems like the point of the list to take care of the bulk of the decision making. Community input goes into making the list, in the form of their webinars.  The publisher, if they sign on to the plan, just implements the list. Plus or minus discretion.

JonasMR wrote:

I think the bit about the onion layers in case the FAist is dead. Section 1.3.1. It is a good point that 'unavailable' does seem a little open to interpretation. Like they didn't return a call in 3-5 business days? Or like they're living off the grid in Alaska and no one has seem them in a few years?

Yes - though a renaming could be replaced later when the FAist becomes available (and aware I guess).  Can't really pull back guide books that have been sold. So there is not a very satisfactory solution for the FAist in Alaska and off the grid.  The best we can do is choose a process that can start as close to name announcement as possible.   Maybe  even provide a site online where FAist's can ask before announcing anything?

JonasMR wrote: 

While fair, I think we also have to remember that we don't know what the community thinks in most all cases. Would the will of the community be based on an online poll, that would be flooded with internet busybodies? Most of the community doesn't really care most of the time. (Naturally it seems different on the forums, because only the few people who care are bothering to post.) It seems like telling apart which names the community agrees with and which they don't is difficult to impossible.

Difficult - yes. That's the next heavy lift: to work out the details of how the Community would "decide" a name is offensive and then work through having it renamed.

And I don't think the problem - the number of routes - is very big.  I wonder how many of the remaining 6000+ routes (out of a quarter million) would be changed by now if only onX/MP had sent polite/respectful messages (they are not) simply saying the name is under evaluation because of X, and until the decision is made the FAist is encouraged to consider and submit a different name if they are inclined.

What I mean is, a name in the gray area  - or worse - may not need to get to the point of being labeled as offensive - we should enable the FAist to voluntarily decide on another name without the label.  It is part of why I think the Climb United solution should be held up against alternative ideas. 

JonasMR wrote:

That's mostly what Climb United does as well. There is the clause for 'discretion,' since the list is a blunt tool. But it seems like the point of the list to take care of the bulk of the decision making. Community input goes into making the list, in the form of their webinars.  The publisher, if they sign on to the plan, just implements the list. Plus or minus discretion.

Agree - ideally they implement the list plus or minus discretion if that is the system we go with.

Obviously I'm doubtful of Climb United's plan and believe there are better alternatives.  I don't assume anyone agrees.  It is just where I think we should explore as an alternative to the Climb United draft plan.

Tom Sherman wrote:

I have to imagine the AAC will cease to exist in 10 years. 

I hope not.

Tom Sherman wrote:

Could you imagine being someone offended by the route name Soup Nazi

I'm offended that they never saw that famous Seinfeld episode. I mean, kids should be forced to watch that in school.

Tim Stich wrote:

I'm offended that they never saw that famous Seinfeld episode. I mean, kids should be forced to watch that in school.

Dang, dude. You kinda sound like a Soup-Nazi Nazi. 

JonasMR wrote:

Dang, dude. You kinda sound like a Soup-Nazi Nazi. 

That is something the Nazis would do. Jeez. 

Please publish the list of 6,000+ identified routes with offensive names or share a link to an xls, pdf, or word file. I didn't see where I could find it. 

Remember when the Feds had no problem with racist words on TV but took exception to 7 "dirty" words? Times have changed, and so have 1st-World problems. 

So far, route redaction on Mountain Project has been a massive witch hunt fueled by personal opinions - yes personal opinions of the people that have route renaming privileges in the Mountain Project database.  How is it going on this promised policy and a committee on route names? Are we going to have to wait another 20 years before this happens? 

I bet over 90% of route names have been chosen in good taste, but redacted because an admin has misconstrued a route's meaning. If an admin could phantom a combination of words to be offensive, the name is redacted and no consideration is given to what the FA meant when s/he named a route. Ultimately, one can find just about any route name to be offensive when taken out of context.

A route I added, Wage Slave (note this is a historic name; I am not the person who named it), was redacted.  This seems questionable, given "slave" has both a noun form that I agree is offensive, but also a verb form that doesn't bother me much ("I slaved away at work all day long"), and the definition of wage slave ("a person wholly dependent on income from employment, typically employment of an arduous or menial nature") isn't particularly offensive.  That said, it's a stupid name and an unremarkable climb and it being redacted or renamed is fine.

What bothers me more, however, is on the same wall is a route called White Collar Redneck.  A "redneck" is a derogatory term for a "poor and poorly educated Southern U.S. white person, cracker." 

I don't think MP gets to have it both ways: if we're going to broadly censor derogatory route names, then I have no idea how redneck, white trash, honkey, gringo or whitey made the cut. And while I honestly believe this oversight is A) unintentional and B) lacks malice, the message it implies is a massive rhetorical boner: that it's fine to use derogatory terms for a "poor or poorly educated southern U.S. white person" or other derogatory terms for white people, but don't even think about using a phrase obliquely related to slavery.  

This lack of even-handedness undermines the goals you're trying to achieve with this project. Please fix this.

Well said, Jeremy.  I think MP has the tiger by the tail.  And they (or AAC) doesn't yet know how to let go.

Although I'd like to hear the view point from whoever flagged it ... barring that it does seem misguided and dare I say complicit over-reach on the part of MP.

I've heard otherwise intelligent people say that you can't be racist against whites.