Discuss - Addressing Offensive Climbing Route Names on Mountain Project

Bill Lawry wrote:

Ha ha.  OnX only owns this particular set of boards around the sand.  What is created in the sand, they do not own except maybe the right to copy (like anyone else).

If you're saying someone owns a route name, good luck with that.

Don't know of any claim to a copyright or trademark.

If you want to rename my reference to this platform as being a "sandbox" to "boards around the sand", whatever. I couldn't care less..semantics.

If there is actually a point to be made about changing route names, it is that it is a poorly defined messy process. Everybody will argue not only about a route's name but about the entire process as seen here.

MP still hasn't released the list of 6000+ offensive route names as far as I can tell, nor have they actually done much of anything concrete with most of those 6000+ names as far as I can tell.

Better things to worry about than MP.'s wokeness.

Teton Climber wrote:

If there is actually a point to be made about changing route names, it is that it is a poorly defined messy process. Everybody will argue not only about a route's name but about the entire process as seen here.

On the above we agree.  Even in a big company, treading the grounds of harassment is full of nuance.

What surprised me about the MP-redacted route names was that the very first person I contacted who had a route name redacted ?  They had no idea.  AND they expressed a willingness to consider other names. MP/OnX hadn't even tried to contact the FA-ists for which they have contact info.  This was probably last spring; route name is still redacted on MP.  At that time, OnX was waiting on the Climb United initiative.  But it seems a small thing to simply notify known FA-ists that someone found their route name to be offensive without demanding a change.  I bet some route names would voluntarily changed if they did.

MP implemented something in good faith with this redacted feature I believe, but they just haven't followed through in any meaningful way.  Well, there is the "Climb United" effort.  But it seems to have stalled. 

Edit:  From AAC Climb-United Time Line:  "2021 - 2022 Industry-wide Principles and Guidelines for Publishing Climbing Route Names adopted and voluntarily put into practice by publishers; supporting the development and expansion of new or existing tools"; source.  OnX is a kind of publisher.  I wonder where OnX/MP are in this.

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Horseshit! The sandbox belongs to the people who opened the routes. MP management is just a few librarians and a rabble of self-righteous social followers renaming books for their own self-esteem. Actually this can be traced back to a single person, trying to position a website for sale.

Even though I don't agree with how MP is going about this, I'm going to have to disagree with you.  

I hugely appreciate people who pioneer new routes and spend time and effort doing so, but rarely does that rock "belong" to them.  Example: most climbing in Utah is on public lands, and simply bolting something (or even less significantly, simply being the first ascensionist) does not grant that individual the right to create a patently offensive name and foist it on everyone else.  

Equippers do not "own" their routes, unless it is quite literally established on property they own.  I think it a proper and fair convention that they get to name the route and have reasonable rights to the FA and should be recognized for their contributions. But I also think the community as a whole has rights that include A) renaming that route, B) removing that route entirely (example: some yahoo bolts on top of an archaeological site)  and C) maintaining that route as they see fit (example: Salt Lake Climber's Coalition updates hardware, decides to move some placements).  And particularly so if that route is on public lands.

Teton Climber wrote:

MP still hasn't released the list of 6000+ offensive route names as far as I can tell

There used to be a page that listed them all. It grew too large and then it was then only showing the first 1000. They then took the page down entirely (with Nick explaining why).

I'm pretty sure this was all in a thread that got deleted, although there's a chance I'm misremembering.

Jeremy Noring wrote:

Even though I don't agree with how MP is going about this, I'm going to have to disagree with you.  

I hugely appreciate people who pioneer new routes and spend time and effort doing so, but rarely does that rock "belong" to them.  Example: most climbing in Utah is on public lands, and simply bolting something (or even less significantly, simply being the first ascensionist) does not grant that individual the right to create a patently offensive name and foist it on everyone else.  

Equippers do not "own" their routes, unless it is quite literally established on property they own.  I think it a proper and fair convention that they get to name the route and have reasonable rights to the FA and should be recognized for their contributions. But I also think the community as a whole has rights that include A) renaming that route, B) removing that route entirely (example: some yahoo bolts on top of an archaeological site)  and C) maintaining that route as they see fit (example: Salt Lake Climber's Coalition updates hardware, decides to move some placements).  And particularly so if that route is on public lands.

The Community as whole doesn't have Rights for shit. It's the same thing with the notion of States Rights. An abstract concept (a state, a community, a collective) doesn't have rights. Only individuals have rights. An individual is an actual existence. A Collective is only an idea.

Claudine Longet wrote:

The Community as whole doesn't have Rights for shit. It's the same thing with the notion of States Rights. An abstract concept (a state, a community, a collective) doesn't have rights. Only individuals have rights. An individual is an actual existence. A Collective is only an idea.

Respectfully, I disagree.  

A route on public lands--as are most routes in Utah--belongs to the climbing community as a whole.  In my opinion, that community reserves the right to rename a route if the name is deemed inappropriate, among other things.

Furthermore, MP isn't some canonical resource.  You are free to refer to a climb by whatever name you choose, publish an alternate guidebook, deny a renamed route, and so forth: that's your right, as an individual. And if you honestly believe a "collective is only an idea" then I don't know why you'd care if someone else referred to a climb as a different name.  If you think a collective is pointless, then why are you here arguing?  What difference does it make to you?

Look, I don't care if "wage slave" is renamed or not--I only wanted to point out that I think there are smarter rhetorical and practical approaches MP could take to get more done with less acrimony. But at the end of the day, I absolutely support some renaming effort. Do I want to take my kid to an area on public lands (for example, Hueco Tanks) with climbs named "Clean Shaven Girls" or "Pumped Full of Semen" or "All That Jizz" or "Sex After Death" or "Fuck You Asshole" or "Another Nigga in the Morgue"? No. I don't.  There's no need for it.  These aren't clever or good names, it's just nonsense from a frat boy climbing culture common in the late 80s/early 90s.

I like climbing too much to let it be defined by rubbish like this, and have it turn off people with whom I would like to share a common love of the activity.

Jamila W wrote:

Kafir is a banned word?  Kafir is the Arabic version of atheist (similar to heathen or atheist).

But heathen and atheist are okay.  So non believers from a Christian nation are fine but the AAC believes that non believers in Muslim nations are themselves so offensive that we can’t mention them?  

Or maybe whoever made the list is culturally illiterate and thinks kafir is the same as kaffir.  

Either way it’s really weak.

They also think the name of a major river should be banned because it looks similar to the n word. (pronounced completely differently)

Jeremy Noring wrote:

Respectfully, I disagree.  

A route on public lands--as are most routes in Utah--belongs to the climbing community as a whole.  In my opinion, that community reserves the right to rename a route if the name is deemed inappropriate, among other things.

Furthermore, MP isn't some canonical resource.  You are free to refer to a climb by whatever name you choose, publish an alternate guidebook, deny a renamed route, and so forth: that's your right, as an individual. And if you honestly believe a "collective is only an idea" then I don't know why you'd care if someone else referred to a climb as a different name.  If you think a collective is pointless, then why are you here arguing?  What difference does it make to you?

Look, I don't care if "wage slave" is renamed or not--I only wanted to point out that I think there are smarter rhetorical and practical approaches MP could take to get more done with less acrimony. But at the end of the day, I absolutely support some renaming effort. Do I want to take my kid to an area on public lands (for example, Hueco Tanks) with climbs named "Clean Shaven Girls" or "Pumped Full of Semen" or "All That Jizz" or "Sex After Death" or "Fuck You Asshole" or "Another Nigga in the Morgue"? No. I don't.  There's no need for it.  These aren't clever or good names, it's just nonsense from a frat boy climbing culture common in the late 80s/early 90s.

I like climbing too much to let it be defined by rubbish like this, and have it turn off people with whom I would like to share a common love of the activity.

When you rhetorically ask: "I don't know why you'd care if someone else referred to a climb as a different name.", You are absolutely correct that I really don't. 

I feel zero need to enforce any sort of hierarchy that involve abstracts such as names and ratings. I also don't care, at all, what Nick chose to do with his website in order to help facilitate selling it. 

However, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And the reaction here is a massive exodus of route developers providing Beta.

So, why did I bother taking the time writing what I did? Because I see a very dismal future coming forth from Gen Z and Alpha. A future of intense conformity. A future where exposure to discomfort and irritation is eradicated for the Collective Good.

Because Collectivism requires Authority. Authority requires Power. And Power attracts sociopaths.

In a previous life, long ago, I was a student of Buckminster Fuller. I am convinced that everything in this universe originates from General Principles. Understand those, and you understand what comes next. My posts are always designed to try and get folks to start developing a philosophical basis of the most basic principles, and then work from there. 

Its been interesting to watch this whole tread. I don't care for censorship as a general principle. 

But, I'm wondering what the "7 dirty words" are in MP's opinion, when it comes to sayings. Example: Here in Colorado there was once a ski run named "No Tickey, no washie" at Vail. It was at the bottom of China Bowl/Two Elk Creek, leading back to the chairlift. It was a play on a Chinese laundry in a Broadway show/movie. I guess, someone took offense to the name and Vail pulled. 

I'm sure there are other "sayings," that are out there that offend some people that used to be excepted in polite company. 

My posts are always designed to try and get folks to start developing a philosophical basis of the most basic principles, and then work from there.

Good luck.

https://www.mountainproject.com/photo/121870974/topo

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/121870939/i-aint-jo-momma

Stay or go?

I think this proves that MP doesn't even read this thread. And how many on MP bothered to flag it - none so far.

MLK day was Monday. 

Just testing the system.

Academics Are Really Worried About Cancel Culture - The Atlantic 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/academics-are-really-really-worried-about-their-freedom/615724/

Why the Latest Campus Cancellation Is Different - The Atlantic 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/

FA of IAYM happened just before MLK day. The route was published on MP the day after MLK day. 

The individuals involved intentionally went out of their way to add an Aunt Jemima logo to their route picture. They used a name for the new route that plays on language stereotypes of African Americans.

Mike Dunn (FA on IAYM) has no activity on MP (but plenty of users with that name). That name just happens to be the name of the guy who shot black teens for playing music too loudly. No connection! Just odd fact. Out of the 8 Jack Whites (2nd FA on IAYM) there is only one example of activity on MP: a route picture. The 3rd FAist on IAYM has no activity on MP, Ky Hart.

Cancel Culture? It's a picture, not a person. And none to cancel. PCness? MP has set its standard! 

Mike Lethal (great name) is active on MP. He uploaded the IAYM route to MP. He is free to chime in and expand on the origins of the route's name, and the reasons for the imagery if he knows.

MP's standards for Hate Speech

There is a line between fun, satire, good taste, good poor taste, and then everything else that might fall under the MP umbrella of "Not Tolerated".

Where is it? 

No word yet on IAYM.

Ky Hart was a FAist on Wide Pride & IAYM

Many hide behind the excesses of CC & PC to look past, or excuse, racist tropes. Does the excess or the tropes serve us well? At times, they are just two sides of the same coin.