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

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?

Patti,

As a 61 year old man, I wouldn't care one bit in such a situation. I would consider the source to be a dipshit and then I'd be fine.

But there's a whole (vastly) different history that makes the opposite exactly not true.

I understand the point you're trying to make, and it's a good and valid point. But I suspect that your analogy really doesn't work regarding most (all?) men.

.

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. 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.

Just so everyone is clear, I invented the ““community”“ thing.

Carry on.

This route name has a specific name on it, and there are people out there who knew this woman. That's simply shitty and shameful. Not calling it out is also shameful, for some of us, at least.

So yes, I'll add my voice to the others who are saying it should be redacted at the least, and also notice who says those who speak out are overeacting, or stifling creativity, or whatever. Remember, I was a library worker for years, and rather fiercely defend free speech. I do understand that there are routes out there with really lameass juvenile names, but mostly those are 40ish years old now, and just....juvenile. Kinda past history. And we're merely talking route names here, not book banning.....which means the rather mild use of (redacted) is hardly a pitchfork response. 

This isn't 40 or 50 years ago.

Well. I like to think so. But. Geez.   

Best, Helen

I bet the hardware is junk

Alexander Blumwrote:

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.

You’re right - and it quite clearly runs afoul of several of the MP Terms and Conditions, as well - which begs the question of why the admins won’t step in:

I think that as a self-moderating climbing community, these are discussions we should have. Calling a spade a spade isn’t posturing or cancel culture. We should try to acknowledge and squash problems in house before they make their way out of the community - whether it’s the USFS threatening to shut down climbing in an area over bolt wars or just generating bad PR that negatively impacts climbing as a whole.

You can blame this thread for giving the FA more publicity, but if MP had just abided by it’s own terms in the first place, this thread never would have existed. It’s amazing how the “but mah free speech” folks still can’t grasp that the first amendment doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want, wherever you want without repercussions (be it having your shitty route name removed or whatever).  

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.

This wouldn’t bother me even slightly. Just my .02 about your hypothetical. If nothing else your examples highlight differences in perception between genders. 

Fern Gullywrote:

This wouldn’t bother me even slightly. Just my .02 about your hypothetical. If nothing else your examples highlight differences in perception between genders. 

Of course it wouldn’t bother you - this would be a one off joke at your expense. 

Women have been oppressed for the majority of modern history. You can’t look at any individual transgression without looking at everything that lead up to it and weaving it all together. Even in the “Land of the Free”, women have only been able to vote for 100 years. They couldn’t even open a credit card on their own until the mid-1970’s! These are only two examples of hundreds - but the point is you’re looking at it from an entirely different perspective. 

Fern Gullywrote:

This wouldn’t bother me even slightly. Just my .02 about your hypothetical. If nothing else your examples highlight differences in perception between genders. 

it was a poor comparison, but let's have have some humility and read between the lines. Couldn't help myself earlier lol.

Naming routes like "throbbing cock" is cheeky and fun, the name of this route is cruel and tragic. Also who the hell grades a route 7+?? 

Rasputin NLNwrote:

it was a poor comparison, but let's have have some humility and read between the lines. Couldn't help myself earlier lol.

Naming routes like "throbbing cock" is cheeky and fun, the name of this route is cruel and tragic. Also who the hell grades a route 7+?? 

Someone who doesn't have any friends to do a second ascent, so has to guess at a grade?

that route name and description is in incredibly poor taste.. the admin who refused to change it is weak. 

Bb Cc wrote:

On public lands no right to name it exists. 

Right.  It’s not like an NFT or something.  It exists only in Beyer’s diseased mind and an MP database.  It doesn’t exist in the “real” world.  (Actually, much like an NFT now that I think about it…)

Click < delete > done.   Then it exists no more as far as the world is concerned.  

He’s free to play his fucked up games. The idea that everyone else has to play too, is fucked up. 

On public lands no right to name it exists.

You either don't understand or don't want to understand, but that's ok. You, personally, have no right to rename someone else's route. It's not a law, it's tradition. The collective you have no more renaming rights than you do individually. There is no committee. 

It's really a simple compromise - just delete the goddamned route from the database and silly nomenclature debates can take a hike - everyone wins!  

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?

Patti, you are making the mistake of thinking that men are equal to women. We are simple creatures for the most part. Not much annoys us. Except for shit drivers, shit talkers, and whiners.

Route names are incapable of offending me, personally

I would avoid the described crag for the “all women” part more than for the route names. I might sneak in on an empty day and put up a route with a musical name like Tube Steak Boogie or Bony Maronie in the interest of equal rights tho…

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

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

We can't "just delete" the route or "just rename" it. No one one commenting here AFAIK is an admin. FA has the right name it, but if they choose a stupid name no one else has to use it, they can't force it. It's up to the community to call it whatever they want or the original one, and if there is a critical mass of people that think it's plainly stupid and mean why shouldn't there should be a mechanism to change it? Cancel cancelling, this is just gardening as much as anything. Some weeds to be pulled. If everyone is annoyed though - especially the women - why not?

I agree with PuppyLover though, maybe the admin that refused to change the line about why he killed her simply doesn't know the story. I can't really be persuaded as to why it would be necessary to include that fairy tale of him "snapping" in the route description, which is why there's no reason to talk to the FA. Where could the compromise be? To some extent "just deleting it" doesn't really absolve the wrong wither. Teachable moments, and all that. Gabby deserved better, and I think we all do.

Very strong echoes here of the route name redacting thread. 

Who the hell grades a route 7+?

People who climb slightly softer than those who grade 8+, I guess. I myself am a 9+ climber *smugly polishes fingernails*

Redacting names is up to MP, dunno just who. Anyone can suggest changes/improvements to a page, though. Up in the corner, iirc. Anything that makes the page better or more accurate. 

At the least that puts the ball in the admin court, and perhaps the person posting the route has a say. Which means they'd have to stand up for the nonsense.

Then there's the opportunity to add comments on the route page, so go for it, eh?

Best, H.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

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

Sure you do. That rock being identified as some shitty route name is a blip in its existence, there is no inherent right to respect some blathering ballsack’s christening.

Kevin Worrallwrote:

Route names are incapable of offending me, personally

I’m going to put up a route and call it “women deserve respect” and really test you on that, sir.

Brooks Turnerwrote:

Of course it wouldn’t bother you - this would be a one off joke at your expense. 

Women have been oppressed for the majority of modern history. You can’t look at any individual transgression without looking at everything that lead up to it and weaving it all together. Even in the “Land of the Free”, women have only been able to vote for 100 years. They couldn’t even open a credit card on their own until the mid-1970’s! These are only two examples of hundreds - but the point is you’re looking at it from an entirely different perspective. 

Brooooo……the women on MP certainly don’t need you to mansplain oppression to them.