[REDACTED] Argument - 5.7+ (Wild River Crag, CO)

I can say one thing about Beyer and that is he's a perpetual advocate for the devil and professional button pusher, a real life troll you could say. He loves being cancelled so its a tough choice to make here...

Greg Daviswrote:

Just refer to the route as Last Argument. There’s a long history of obnoxious / tedious route names being shortened. Butthole express at Dixon commonly called The Express, renaming of illusion dweller, etc etc.

Last argument, 5.7+ one star choss put up by some guy. Done. 

That's not a bad idea, actually.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

This is a perfect example of the posturing of the internet. You know who put up the route, you could have a literal conversation with the person or at least try. Instead you wanna fire up a mob to have some drama over a route few will climb.

I simply can’t wrap my mind around how having a conversation with an adult is secondary to a mob of internet strangers. Or even attempting to get a mob or internet strangers. It’s a rock in the woods someone gave a dumb name.

I agree with the Puppy. How can that be? I must be slipping. Woe is me.

Jess Arnoldwrote:

With all due respect, because I think this is a valid question: it is a gender issue. Not everything is, and I think I know what you‘re getting at there - but this is.

Women are telling you it is an issue. We are telling you that this kind of conversation/semantics is hurtful. We’re telling you that the explicit conversation (and in some cases denial) of violence against women is distressing. I hope I don‘t have to explain why. 

At minimum, if we can’t challenge these ideas and have discourse on why it isn’t helping half (or more) of the population, it will continue to be an issue.

Believing women and those with starkly different lived experiences begins with listening, and I appreciate those who are. 

I understand it is in an issue. I believe women. I believe that freedom of expression extends to those that wish to condemn this route name. But I also believe that trying to get a route name cancelled is a token gesture and does nothing to combat the very real and deep-seated problem of domestic violence .

Artistry and freedom of expression are under attack im this country. It’s important to defend ugly freedom of expression equally to that which is beautiful and universally loved.

FrankPSwrote:

I agree with the Puppy. How can that be? I must be slipping. Woe is me.

Yes, but we don’t say these things aloud

Marc Hwrote:

I understand it is in an issue. I believe women. I believe that freedom of expression extends to those that wish to condemn this route name. But I also believe that trying to get a route name cancelled is a token gesture and does nothing to combat the very real and deep-seated problem of domestic violence .

Artistry and freedom of expression is under attack im this country. It’s important to defend ugly freedom of expression equally to that which is beautiful and universally loved.

Thanks for your response, Marc. I agree with some of your points here, but think that challenging a route name in this case does indeed play a small part in combatting violence. If we as a society bring to the surface what we might say behind closed doors and in the process listen to/challenge each other’s views’, I think we can be a kinder society.

While changing a name or description might not directly (and probably won’t) effect a perpetrator’s decision to commit a violent act in the moment, hopefully it conditions us to be better stewards of each other and help prevent the next horrific thing from happening. I believe confronting our dialogue around these issues is just as important as confronting the issues themselves, whether it‘s in the media or on an online forum, and this is why: 

Perhaps it helps the next solo female traveler feel a little safer on the road, knowing that she has a community behind her. Perhaps it allows a man who wouldn’t have otherwise spoken up to get involved and stand up for his female-identifying friends during a moment of crisis. Perhaps it gives space for more female route developers to step up and engage their artistic expression. Perhaps it helps a woman feel more confident in reporting her assault. Maybe it will encourage some of you to pause the next time you’re at your keyboard, ready to play devils‘ advocate at any cost (that‘s not aimed at anyone in particular) and discourage women’s input in the process. Whatever it might encourage, for the better, I think it‘s a chance worthy of taking and far from a token gesture.

Small steps.

Climbers grow old but they never grow up

Marc H wrote:

Just delete the route if you don't like it. You have no right to rename it.

Eric Marxwrote:

Climbers grow old but they never grow up

We're all but Children of god or God or The Universe or in some people's case, The Corn.

petzl logicwrote:

I am not going to do that because I don't think there is anything to discuss with him. I don't need to provide him an explanation of why I think he's a moron, and he doesn't need to opine to me about his right to "free speech". If he wants to call it that to his friends or put in his own guidebook, I don't control those things. I don't control Mountain Project either, but I am a participant here on a forum and crowdsourced route database and this is about what that community thinks is an acceptable name and description since we share this space. If these are the standards that we hold to ourselves to (i.e. none) then to me the site is no different than a 4chan, etc. It's just words on a screen, I am not "hurt" by them, but I also think it is a small change to edit the description and (perhaps) title, far easier than driving across the country to deface it, anyway. If everyone thinks that the name and description is cool, I guess I'll have to accept that I have a minority opinion. So it goes.

Except in this case the vast majority of the "community" wouldn't even know about this route if it weren't for this thread. What your doing is the equivalent of seeing a child miss the trash can with their trash. And instead of even attempting to reason with the child (Jim), their parents (the admins), or the people around the child (CO subforum) you are making this a comically large issue. I agree that it is poor taste but this site is effectively the 4chan of rock climbing, has anything productive ever even occurred in these forums? 

If we wanna be a "community" we should start by being nice to each other. One route name isnt going to fix this site or community. For users its way easier to get fired up with vitriol than recognize they are having a conversation with another person.

This is my first exposure to the guy, but some quick reading suggests he has done a bunch of ground-up, solo "A6+" routes. Most of his routes appear to have conflicting beta between the first ascent and subsequent ascents, and he seems to find joy in putting others at risk. He clearly wants to get "woke liberals" riled up. I would agree that this thread is likely what he would hope for, based on his own comments I have read. 

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Except in this case the vast majority of the "community" wouldn't even know about this route if it weren't for this thread. What your doing is the equivalent of seeing a child miss the trash can with their trash. And instead of even attempting to reason with the child (Jim), their parents (the admins), or the people around the child (CO subforum) you are making this a comically large issue. I agree that it is poor taste but this site is effectively the 4chan of rock climbing, has anything productive ever even occurred in these forums? 

If we wanna be a "community" we should start by being nice to each other. One route name isnt going to fix this site or community. For users its way easier to get fired up with vitriol than recognize they are having a conversation with another person.

This leads me to believe you've spent little time on 4chan.  

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Except in this case the vast majority of the "community" wouldn't even know about this route if it weren't for this thread. What your doing is the equivalent of seeing a child miss the trash can with their trash. And instead of even attempting to reason with the child (Jim), their parents (the admins), or the people around the child (CO subforum) you are making this a comically large issue. 

Making things a comically large issue huh? Sounds kinda like some threads I’ve heard about…

I agree that it is poor taste but this site is effectively the 4chan of rock climbing, has anything productive ever even occurred in these forums? 

The FS/WTB thread seems to be pretty productive….but also there was that one forum where bolts got chopped after somebody complained...don’t forget about the secret crag guy realizing he was a dick for inviting a whole bunch of people.….additionally this route now is less than 1 star almost entirely because of this route. 

If we wanna be a "community" we should start by being nice to each other. One route name isnt going to fix this site or community. For users its way easier to get fired up with vitriol than recognize they are having a conversation with another person.

I really wish you’d make up your mind on whether you’re gonna be a troll account or a normal one that sometimes solicits advice to internet people and comments on routes.

Makes no difference to me whether it's 5.7 or 5.13, 1 star or 4 star quality. The name and the description are offensive and promote violence towards women. The implication is Gabby deserved it - of course I don't need to explain that to the people saying it's fine, free speech or whatever. Not saying something is like staying silent when someone makes a racist comment or joke. It's not 'canceling' anything (God I have come to hate that term), it is speaking up when you see something that is wrong. Thank you Jess, and Dierdre, for your thoughtful and helpful posts. You are both much more eloquent than I am. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

 And instead of even attempting to reason with the child (Jim), their parents (the admins)

OP did contact the admins.  He specifically said that in his first post in this thread, and included a quote from the admin that he received in response.  FYI I also contacted the admins about this route and received similar (dismissive) feedback.

Maybe you should slow down for 10 seconds and actually read the post you're responding to?  I know, I know, that would interfere with your ability to maximize the amount of asinine garbage you post on this website, and history has shown you clearly just don't give a fuck.

OP did contact the admins.  

Editing a route description is not really contacting admins, it is clear from their response they have no idea what to do (or maybe even who gabby is), so maybe actually talking to them would be productive.

But sure lets split hairs, he sent one sentence to one of six admins. Solid conversation right there. 

The only point I was making is that if we escalate to the largest stage every time there is a problem nothing is going to get done or if we assume the worst intentions by the FA, the OP just executed them. I am sorry if I upset you. Consider it an act of goodwill and I will change my vote to changing the route name. 

But everyone here needs to chill. Its a rock in the woods some ass named. 

No one on MP has good faith arguments (trolls or not). This is functionally an argument about whether to censor people or not.

Why does an obligation exist to 'have a conversation' with someone who is interested in putting a route name like that out there in the world? It's ignorant, deeply offensive, and cruel for the sake of being cruel. The person who named that route doesn't deserve consideration, or dialogue.

FA: "Gabby deserved it"

Everyone else: "You're entitled to your opinion, but can we have a polite discussion about it? Maybe we can find a middle ground!"

The middle ground: Gabby only kind of deserved it.

Fence-sitting in the name of 'free-speech' when something is so obviously unacceptable is not a good look. What value does allowing shit like this in the climbing community bring?

Patti Degner wrote:

Consider a hypothetical crag with the following route names: "Kill All Men", "Men are Pigs", "Throbbing Cock" etc. And you roll up to the crag and see several parties, all women of course, except maybe for that one boyfriend who was dragged out there for the day so that he can belay his girlfriend on her proj. Would you, as a man, feel 100% welcome there?

What if the names were more benign, like "Bitty Buttress", "The Obelisk", "Jam Band" or whatever? Would that change your perception of the crowd that climbs there, and of the climbing community in general? 

In this case, changing the name may not have solved a deep-seated problem, but I would argue that it makes a difference. It demonstrates what the climbing community is okay with.

I would be incredibly psyched to show up to a crag full of women and climb a route named “throbbing cock”

Patti Degner wrote:

Consider a hypothetical crag with the following route names: "Kill All Men", "Men are Pigs", "Throbbing Cock" etc. And you roll up to the crag and see several parties, all women of course, except maybe for that one boyfriend who was dragged out there for the day so that he can belay his girlfriend on her proj. Would you, as a man, feel 100% welcome there?

Rock climbing, loads of women, few men; sounds like heaven.