Redacted Squad - offensive route names on MP

Sometimes bugs on windshields can win: https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105929580/soup-nazi

The Soup Nazi is back boys and girls ;)

Though I noticed they scrubbed all the comments complaining about the censorship, including my own. Interesting move… blatantly erasing history like that. I know they’ll excuse it as updating relevant comments, but there are loads of outdated historical beta that does and should remain on the website. Seems like them trying to erase traces of their mess.

I also find it interesting that there is such an insistence that no one is renaming routes without FA’s go ahead in an attempt to assuage fears of “executive actions” by admins, and yet Shockley’s Ceiling has been renamed to the Ceiling, as well as a 1984 style two minutes of hate feature directed at the man, entirely irrelevant to the subject of his rock climbing days. Talk about MP’s guidelines that “irrelevant politics are a poor choice of subject for a climbing website.”

“His name is forever tarnished.” Wow, just wow. Thanks for the lecture MP. 

Isn’t it also interesting that the “History” makes absolutely zero mention of his climbing history? You’d think a history section on a climbing beta website would say something about… climbing history. No, it’s all too clear it was a lame excuse at virtue signaling.

Edit: I can see my comments on the app, but not on the website for some reason. maybe didn’t update yet. On my profile there’s no link to that comment either.

Wrong again.

The Gunks climbing community changed the name and MP was updated to reflect that: https://gunksapps.com/Renaming.html

Route descriptions aren't authored by MP, they're written by MP users. 

First Lastwrote:

Wrong again.

The Gunks climbing community changed the name and MP was updated to reflect that: https://gunksapps.com/Renaming.html

Route descriptions aren't authored by MP, they're written by MP users. 

Which climbing community? I didn’t see any vote? You mean the authors of an online paid guidebook are stand ins for the community? Why must MP follow the decisions of one paid guidebook, and not another? Some of which still name it Shockley’s Ceiling. I have a full post on the Shockley’s Ceiling you can read. And given the likes and responses, it’s all too clear many, if not the majority, find this foolishness.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

Which climbing community? I didn’t see any vote? You mean the authors of an online paid guidebook are stand ins for the community? Why must MP follow the decisions of one paid guidebook, and not another? Some of which still name it Shockley’s Ceiling. I have a full post on the Shockley’s Ceiling you can read. And given the likes and responses, it’s all too clear many, if not the majority, find this foolishness.

Do you ever stop arguing?

Marc801 Cwrote:

Do you ever stop arguing?

It appears not. I can only imagine what a repetitive curmudgeon he’ll be in his old age, lol!

If I'm recalling correct David is recovering from injury? Dude's got nothing but time and built up whatever it is, that he's taking out on these forums.

That or maybe he majored in rhetoric and we all get to pay the price.

grug gwrote:

Its been another year so I'm asking again. Years ago a diverse committee was created to correct offensive route names on MP. We still have many route names listed as Redacted. When will this project be completed? What are the next steps?

To bring it all the way back to the questions that kicked off this thread, this work is very much ongoing and we’ve made some good progress this year. As of last week, out of 6,835 names that have ever been flagged, 4,522 are now fully resolved (either keeping the original name or with a new name), 714 are redacted, and 1,599 are awaiting review. We’re projecting being wrapped up with the review of flagged names by spring 2025 and maybe sooner (newly-flagged names will continue to be reviewed as they’re submitted by users). The process of inviting new or revised names has been slow so far as we’ve worked to connect with FAs, and we don’t yet have an ETA for resolving the redacted route names.

We hear how frustrating it is to see redacted names and be unable to differentiate between climbs. We're sorry for that and appreciate the admins and other users who have emailed us with specific examples where further review is needed or there's an opportunity to connect with the FA to find resolution on a case-by-case basis. We'll see if the current redaction naming structure can be improved in the meantime to help differentiate between climbs.

If you come across a redacted route name that should be reviewed, reconsidered, or edited, please email support@mountainproject.com or contact me directly. Please provide as much context as possible. If you come across a route name that should be flagged for review, please use the Improve This Page > Flag Discriminatory Name link to submit that name.

What gives someone the moral right to tell other consenting adults that they’re not allowed to see certain language in historical route names? I say, if someone doesn’t like something, they can close their own eyes. It’s easier than ever in the online space. There are smart browser plugins that censor profanity and slurs. Maybe some where it intelligently substitutes with euphemisms using LLM’s.

Try this: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/profanity-blocker/nfeoeimdfclfmipanclebdelkjdhdioj

But this isn’t what’s done. Instead they go out and censor it so that others can’t see it too. This means it’s not just about inclusion. This is about virtue signaling and power. Telling OTHER people what they can and can’t see. Those who go out into the world and dictate to others how to behave at the whims of their personal sensitivities are narcissists. Those who have no qualms carelessly revising history like it’s the second draft of their 3rd grade book report, without a thought for the consequences of historical erasure, are the real bullies.

I also have to wonder what methods are used when contacting FA’s. How many aging men and women with degenerative diseases have you guys contacted, who have long stopped climbing since their hay-days of the 70’s, bombarding them with all the grandstanding language in the book, emotionally manipulating and isolating them into feeling sorry for which they have nothing to feel sorry? It is all to clear that this and other actions and decisions are done without any transparency, propped up by a facade of good faith.

The self-admission that they use a “DIE committee” tells the real story. Need I spell out the obvious? Since when does a private for profit company care about “equity,” and what does that have to do with route names? No, let’s all stop deluding ourselves. We all know what this is about. This is a political/cultural hijacking, a smart one too, that shamelessly weaponizes language, and emotionally targets people into capitulating to their radical desires. It’s no coincidence that the route renaming first started in august 2020. While lockdowns kept us scared with our heads down, opportunistic radicals infected by an anti-human ideology rapidly invaded with their own cultural revolution across the country, doing their best to directly aim at those in charge. This is no democratic will of the climbing community, nor is it some sudden will of the company to be somehow more profitable because of “offensive” words. We all know what this is really about.

David is like a less fun Tradiban.

This thread has made one thing clear. That the culture war conscripts like David will forever continue frothing at the mouth about the fraction of a percent of the routes on MP that the climbing community does not embrace as belonging in our sport. Doesn't matter how few routes names are affected, how repugnant the route names are, how accepted MP's approach is, or how soundly the rest of us reject his repeated attempts to marshall public opinion, he'll be there to catastrophize and spout off like a Westboro Baptist Church preacher with a megaphone outside a funeral he wasn't invited to.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

bombarding them with all the grandstanding language in the book, emotionally manipulating and isolating them into feeling sorry for which they have nothing to feel sorry?

Glad you don’t do that. 

The funny part is route names have been changed long before the “virtue signaling” David is fixated on. One instance near me is a climb that was called “The Eunuchs from Placerville” named after some FA feud, which was fortunately changed to “Crown Royal” after the juvenile spat was buried (presumably with the aid of liquor). Illusion Dweller in Joshua Tree NP had some ridiculous name that read like a Philip K. Dick novel title.

Equivocating suggested name changes for “Tinder Pussy,” “Rape Conducive”, “Negress Wall,” “Way Homo Sperm Burpers from Fresno,” and the like to some sort of 1984-esque loss of free thinking is ridiculous. You can call the routes what you want / what the FA party named it, but the larger community is not obligated to refer to them as such. We don’t have to enshrine every antisocial piece of graffiti thrown our way.

These are essentially hiking trails, not works of literature one chooses to read. We all know about the existence of these terms, we probably use many of them, but we don’t necessarily want to refer to a path up a cliff as such.  So, yeah, fuck your false equivalencies and OCD doubling down, slippery slope, kooky bullshit. They are route names, not the last bastion of the culture warrior, and you continue to look the worse for positing such. Frankly, you look like you have lost or are losing it when you post the same post, over and over, just worded a bit differently.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

Sometimes bugs on windshields can win:

That isn’t winning against MP / OnX / DIE. That is just how the process works. And the process worked in the direction you preferred, probably most of us preferred.

Well, I guess that is winning against a bot mindlessly searching for specific words. 

<sarcasm> Woo hoo!  <\sarcasm>.

Lou Pwrote:

Glad you don’t do that. 

Name one.
I never target individual users in this entire website with underhanded personal attacks and epithets, even in jest it’s rare for me. I can name 30 examples, in this thread alone, directly targeting me with substanceless insults, Admins and ordinary users alike. Like the one directly above your reply….

So it’s all too natural to conclude those authors of those route names they hate so much, many of the FA’s likely geriatrics in their 70’s, are receiving targeted emotional manipulation.

Colonel Mustardwrote:

The funny part is route names have been changed long before the “virtue signaling” David is fixated on. One instance near me is a climb that was called “The Eunuchs from Placerville” named after some FA feud, which was fortunately changed to “Crown Royal” after the juvenile spat was buried (presumably with the aid of liquor). Illusion Dweller in Joshua Tree NP had some ridiculous name that read like a Philip K. Dick novel title.

You’re comparing an FA feud to someone who is definitely not claiming to be the FA changing routenames? 

Equivocating suggested name changes for “Tinder Pussy,” “Rape Conducive”, “Negress Wall,” “Way Homo Sperm Burpers from Fresno,” and the like to some sort of 1984-esque loss of free thinking is ridiculous. You can call the routes what you want / what the FA party named it, but the larger community is not obligated to refer to them as such. We don’t have to enshrine every antisocial piece of graffiti thrown our way.

Good job. You have stated the obvious: there are disgusting route names that many of us don’t want to speak. Something we all admitted 6 pages ago. Now I just ask you 2 questions, which, on the other hand, no one answers or has admitted that they can’t (among several others): 

1. What’s the criteria? Define it precisely. I asked this many pages ago and everyone ignored.
2. Where is this “larger community” vote? Many repeatedly ignore this too.

Unless you can answer these questions, you’re living in lala land.

One might also conclude that I sound repetitive to those who make a habit of ignoring many tough questions that result in cognitive dissonance.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

1. What’s the criteria? Define it precisely. I asked this many pages ago and everyone ignored.

Easy. On MP, it is the criteria of those who maintain the necessary tech - in this case, OnX. And they’ve made a good faith effort to not go it alone much as I might disagree with individual decisions. For example, see the committee’s list of forbidden list of words.

Maybe this is so obvious that no one replied.

1. Where is this “larger community” vote? Many repeatedly ignore this too.

Also easy. It is what you refer to as that DEI committee - though you might argue it is not the community which I would grant   Still, I would set up a different process.

.One might also conclude that I sound repetitive to those who make a habit of ignoring many tough questions that result in cognitive dissonance.

1’s and 0’s are cheap.  Keep asking those “tough” questions, David.

Bill Lawrywrote:

Easy. On MP, it is the criteria of those who maintain the necessary tech - in this case, OnX. And they’ve made a good faith effort to not go it alone much as I might disagree with individual decisions. For example, see the committee’s list of forbidden list of words.

Translation: “Easy. I’m going to answer your question by…. Deferring the answer to someone else and not answering myself. I am totally comfortable with letting others think for me on important questions, and you should be too!”

Nice try. The reality is many would campaign for this censorship and historical erasure if MP was suddenly open source, or any other medium. You’re just begging the question.

Here are some guiding questions that might help your next better faith response for the criteria for erasure/renaming:

1. Define hate speech.
2. What determines when someone is authentically offended? Or are all people authentically offended, it’s that despite this, authentic offense could be wrong?
3. You’re not allowed to say “it’s all part of the proccess.” This is an informal fallacy. You have allowed yourself to conclude that any undesired outcomes are merely future outcomes in rectification (they can do no wrong!). But that’s delusional, because permanent damage can be done with historical erasure, like when routes are entirely renamed without any reference on MP to previous names. Like “Shockley’s ceiling.” 

Also easy. It is what you refer to as that DIE committee - though you might argue it is not the community which I would grant   Still, I would set up a different process.

Awesome! You have admitted there is no “larger community” democratic vote. The only problem: it’s others in this thread, not you, who are desperately and repetitively insisting that this happened, like Odysseus hanging onto a branch for dear life trying to escape the reality of scylla and charybdis:

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

The reality is many would campaign for this censorship and historical erasure if MP was suddenly open source, or any other medium. You’re just begging the question.

Wrong. My answer is to delegate this one given OnX’s track record so far. And you don’t want that. We disagree. That is all. 

No sense in trying to force me down the path that you want as some with anxiety disorders or obsessive-compulsive disorder tend to do when their view isn’t adopted by others.

We’re at near universal consensus that the decision to redact the most offensive names was reasonable. So we’re just discussing individual cases now.

David made his case for “soup nazi” and succeeded. So it seems the somewhat opaque process will still be responsive to the community. Id like to think that the completion of the initial review in Spring 2025 will then allow for new feedback. We all agree MP is constantly evolving based on user feedback but nothing can please everyone.

So let’s get away from the hypotheticals and hear a good faith case for “Shockley’s ceiling”. What is the context others are missing?

Zander Göpfertwrote:

We hear how frustrating it is to see redacted names and be unable to differentiate between climbs. We're sorry for that and appreciate the admins and other users who have emailed us with specific examples where further review is needed or there's an opportunity to connect with the FA to find resolution on a case-by-case basis. We'll see if the current redaction naming structure can be improved in the meantime to help differentiate between climbs.

Thanks for sharing what is actually going on.

Earlier in this thread, there was a link to the previous redaction plan. It said that if a new name couldn’t be applied within two months, a temporary unique name would be displayed, something like [FAist name, date]. What happened to that plan?

It seems like that plan would address one of the few legitimate complaints raised here. (Obviously getting the backlog cleared faster would be better, but most people know what it’s like to live with a long to do list.)