Redacted Squad - offensive route names on MP

Lou Pwrote:

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?

Context is that it is just "canceling" a whole person because of a particular line of thought they had that we now historically mostly find off putting. "Shockley's Ceiling" was just recognition that the dude did the FA of a rock formation and made no refence to eugenics, threatened, nor was meant as an insult to anyone. I don't see how his very name has the power to make people fall down and shrivel. Seems like bad beta to me

The whole Shockley thing tells the tale of how light people have become. There mere visibility of the name "Shockley" is traumatizing, oh my.

Oh... my.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

The whole Shockley thing tells the tale of how light people have become. There mere visibility of the name "Shockley" is traumatizing, oh my.

Oh... my.

It does have the word "shock" in it. People may be becoming more affected by light patterns than thought.

Edit - In this case local climbing groups and other guides decided to change the name, so it is likely a hard sell to  return it to the original name, at least any time soon.

Personally, I would like to see the restrictions on juvenile references to  body parts and such loosened up. Just because you make a joking play on words doesn't mean you are disrespectful, misogynist or "treating somebody like an object". I have heard as much joking of that sort from women as men. I think we all can agree that people have been fascinated with that subject forever. You get a lot of misfires, but considerable wit has gone into ribaldry over the ages.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105880407/redacted

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105858837/crack-babies

Same name. One is redacted the other is not. Ridiculous...

M Spraguewrote:

It does have the word "shock" in it. People may be becoming more affected by light patterns than thought.

Edit - In this case local climbing groups and other guides decided to change the name, so it is likely a hard sell to  return it to the original name, at least any time soon.

Personally, I would like to see the restrictions on juvenile references to  body parts and such loosened up. Just because you make a joking play on words doesn't mean you are disrespectful, misogynist or "treating somebody like an object". I have heard as much joking of that sort from women as men. I think we all can agree that people have been fascinated with that subject forever. You get a lot of misfires, but considerable wit has gone into ribaldry over the ages.

You should quote "local groups" because I would bet big money that these "local groups" are one or two folks with nothing better to do.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

The whole Shockley thing tells the tale of how light people have become. There mere visibility of the name "Shockley" is traumatizing, oh my.

Oh... my.

Yep. Any accusations of “slippery slope” fallacies are moot points. We are already on the slippery slope. The shockley ceiling renaming betrays that. The words are not at all offensive, and I expect 99% of climbers have no idea who he is. This is not just purehearted desire to give people routenames with words they are willing to utter. We are seeing something categorically different.

But make no mistake, it’s no outlier or idiosyncrasy. This is very typical of that same madness that topples statues of george washington and abrahm Lincoln and is renaming historic sites left and right. This isn’t just about making people feel not offended. It’s about “revising history” to fit their grandstanding moral assessments. It’s cultural revolution.

Bill Lawrywrote:

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.

 Well then don’t make the claim that you’re interested in answering tough questions if you’re just going to delegate and let someone else decide. MP has made zero transparent and precise answer to the question of what is hate speech, what classifies as offense, and has not clearly described any stopping conditions for when the side effects of the cure outdo the disease. If you’re just going by what’s in their manifestos, many redactions are completely outside the purview of that “bad words” list.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

 Well then don’t make the claim that you’re interested in answering my tough questions if you’re just going to delegate and let someone else decide.

Fair enough, I guess.  

 MP has made zero transparent and precise answer to the question of what is hate speech, what classifies as offense, and has not clearly described any stopping conditions for when the side effects of the cure outdo the disease. If you’re just going by what’s in their manifestos, many redactions are completely outside the purview of that “bad words” list.

Unambiguous and precise definitions of hate speech and/or offense are not possible with humans.  And so some of us choose to hear out the offended and then make whatever judgement.

If one routinely listens to those offended while collecting each definition along the way, the definitions will vary as much as the backgrounds of individuals vary - even if all the obvious outliers are thrown out.  Backgrounds of individuals matter.

Probably our key difference in the above is whether I get to decide what offends you - I don't.

In short, your demanding answers to your "tough" questions, answers that fit your definition of validity, is naive or over-controlling or both IMO.  And, yeah, that judgment sometimes fits how I "carry" a couple of my opinions.

Still, in the face of intractable ambiguity, most of us collectively move forward as best we can while not allowing some ever-illusive "perfect" to get in the way of "good enough".  It's a valid response, much as you might want to resist.

And, so far, OnX et al are doing good enough in this area IMO.  Still, carry on. 

Bill Lawrywrote:In short, your demanding answers to your "tough" questions, answers that fit your definition of validity, is naive or over-controlling or both IMO.  

…..
It's a valid response, much as you might want to resist.

And, so far, OnX et al are doing good enough in this area IMO. 

You are honest in admitting MP is like your Father. I respect filial piety. But then don’t try to tell me I can’t question your Dad when he keeps taking his hand off the brake strand. “He’s belayed me all my life and SO FAR nothing bad has come of it.”

MP is trying to lecture me that Shockley is forever disgraced and now I must call it the Ceiling. They are stepping on history, the FA, and trying to control me and others with their historical naïveté. You might still whip, and that’s your call, but I won’t. Those who talk down at me like they’re morally superior and try to force my hand are responsible for answers.

Lol. My Father? Edit: We may be converging on an agreeable analogy.

Just a little research here would reveal that OnX / MP is more like my gangster relative who owns my neighborhood and is holding me hostage, all the while taking care of my home maintenance.

Sep Mwrote:

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.)

Step 5c (The First Ascenscionist (FA) is notified via email and invited to provide a new or revised name) actually skips an incredibly time consuming step, which is figuring out who the FA is and how to get in touch with them. The two month window begins after we've contacted the FA, not after the name has been redacted. As a result, some names have been left redacted for much longer. In hindsight, we may have been too cautious in opting to not use a generic placeholder like [crag],[FA last name],[number] to start or before getting in touch with the FA, but we wanted to be very clear that we weren't renaming routes without the FA or making every effort to work with them first. From recent conversations and feedback here, we're learning that generic placeholders are a better stand-in even when we haven't been able to connect with the FA. 

E MuuDwrote:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105880407/redacted

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105858837/crack-babies

Same name. One is redacted the other is not. Ridiculous...

Thanks for letting us know. The visible name hadn't been flagged so it wasn't included in the review. It's since been redacted for consistency. 

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

MP is trying to lecture me that Shockley is forever disgraced and now I must call it the Ceiling. 

LOL. How does that work a 'shock' collar?

Imagine standing up for a guy who was a leading white supremacist and eugenicist in the 1980s, who proposed a sterilization program for people with low IQ.

egocentric

[ ee-goh-sen-trik]

adjective

1. having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things:

 an egocentric philosophy that ignores social causes.

2. having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered:

 an egocentric person; egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others.

Zander Göpfertwrote:

Step 5c (The First Ascenscionist (FA) is notified via email and invited to provide a new or revised name) actually skips an incredibly time consuming step, which is figuring out who the FA is and how to get in touch with them. The two month window begins after we've contacted the FA, not after the name has been redacted. As a result, some names have been left redacted for much longer. In hindsight, we may have been too cautious in opting to not use a generic placeholder like [crag],[FA last name],[number] to start or before getting in touch with the FA, but we wanted to be very clear that we weren't renaming routes without the FA or making every effort to work with them first. From recent conversations and feedback here, we're learning that generic placeholders are a better stand-in even when we haven't been able to connect with the FA. 

 I literally predicted this in another thread yesterday. I just thought it would take a few years before we saw signs, not the very next day:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/127070101/changing-routeboulder-names#ForumMessage-127113003

It’s interesting to note that the claimed intent is to make MP more functionally appealing with unoffensive words, and yet the very first measure in service of that end immediately reduces functionality. 

Sooner or later with enough complaints like these, and enough FA’s that refuse to cooperate, they’ll rename the routes outright, instead of faking care for FA’s. 

 "We have received a lot of complaints that we rename routes with generic [redacted]. We’ve also been unable to rename many routes because the FA’s are deceased, MIA, or refuse to cooperate. For these reasons, we are allowing admins to make executive decisions, as they are stewards and representatives of their local MP climbing communities."

It’s perfect gradualism. Create solutions that decrease functionality and increase irritation, causing many to complain, justifying the next escalation. Maybe the next one will come from those dissatisfied with the robotic serial code placeholder [crag],[FA last name],[number]. 

After all, they totally renamed with Shockley’s Ceiling (FA’ed in 1953), the name MP used since 2006, only to rename it in september 2021. That’s only 13 months after Nick Wilder’s initial statements about offensive route-names, strongly insisting that they aren’t renaming

Q: Is MP changing route names?

A: No, we are not changing names. We are placing limits on what we will publish on Mountain Project. For names we won’t publish, we show “[Redacted].”

They keep moving the goalposts. And their foot is already in the door. And Zander has all but admitted that they are renaming after "making every effort to work with them [the FA] first."

Zander Göpfertwrote:

We hear how frustrating it is to see redacted names and be unable to differentiate between climbs. We're sorry for that 

"But our desire to appear 'progressive' out-weighs the confusion this is causing, and will continue to cause in the future"

From a business standpoint, not offending the FAs, who contribute greatly to climbing in general, and to the database specially, should be Onyx's top priority I'd think. 

Ah, the classic six-dimensional chess of making thoughtful adjustments in response to community feedback. Trick people into thinking you're reasonable by behaving reasonably - truly a devious plot.

You've also criticized the idea of a community vote and demanded a community vote within the same thread. And that's just what we can parse, nevermind the gibberish about MP being 'Father' or your grotesque fan fiction about MP bullying senile climbing legends. You can throw spaghetti at the wall and proudly anoint yourself a truth teller and prophet, you'll still get exactly the kind of attention you deserve, David.

It's been said before but I'll say it again for the people in the back. The Gunks community decided to omit Shockley's name from The Ceiling. MP users changed the name and description to match. You (and the white supremacists who have come to hold him up as their darling and champion) can continue to call it whatever you want.

From a business standpoint, not offending the FAs, who contribute greatly to climbing in general, and to the database specially, should be Onyx's top priority I'd think. 

Shockley the white supremist and eugenicist died in 1989. I don't think not offending him is a top priority. 

Shockley's ceiling is a great example. Yes his name by itself is not offensive. But giving his name prominent attention is like having a statue of a slave owner confederate in front of a southern statehouse. If you're an asshole don't be surprised when the majority of reasonable people banish you to the back pages. History is not erased (a bullshit excuse typically spouted). You are just saying the guy was an asshole and you are not prominently celebrating him as a person any longer. You can still read about Shockley and the postive things he accomplished.

Figures from history often had complex legacies, with actions and beliefs shaped by the context of their times. Removing recognition of such figures because of offensive views or actions may impose contemporary moral standards on the past, which could oversimplify historical narratives. Instead of erasing or sidelining their contributions, it could be more productive to add context to their recognition. For example, preserving the name while including information about both their accomplishments and problematic beliefs can foster deeper understanding rather than outright dismissal. Despite Shockley’s offensive personal beliefs, his contributions to science, particularly his role in the development of the transistor, significantly advanced technology. Honoring his achievements can be seen as acknowledging the impact of his work rather than endorsing his views. Distinguishing between recognizing scientific achievements and celebrating personal ideologies helps maintain a balanced approach to historical remembrance. The argument that renaming or removing commemorations isn't "erasing history" overlooks how public memory is shaped by these symbols. When we remove names and monuments, we risk minimizing opportunities to critically engage with the full picture of a historical figure's life, including both positive contributions and offensive views. Instead of "banishing" controversial figures to the "back pages," keeping their names with educational context can provide a fuller, more accurate picture of history, allowing society to learn from past mistakes without erasing their accomplishments. If the standard is to remove honors for figures who held offensive beliefs or did problematic things by today’s standards, it becomes difficult to draw clear lines. Many historical figures would likely fail to meet modern ethical standards, making it challenging to determine who deserves recognition. A more consistent approach would involve contextualizing the recognition rather than outright removing it, to preserve a balanced historical record. While Shockley's views were reprehensible, his contributions to science are still significant. It’s possible to recognize those contributions in a way that acknowledges his offensive beliefs, ensuring history is neither rewritten nor erased but rather used as a means for nuanced reflection and education.

You can go to the Wikipedia page on Shockley and learn about the good and bad aspects of his history. Even in the 80s the things he was saying were reprehensible at the time. I don’t think the value of putting the names or statues of controversial people in prominent places is going to generate enough conversation about them to warrant the tacit approval this placement signals. 

Gloweringwrote:

LOL. How does that work a 'shock' collar?

Imagine standing up for a guy who was a leading white supremacist and eugenicist in the 1980s, who proposed a sterilization program for people with low IQ.

egocentric

[ ee-goh-sen-trik]

adjective

1. having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things:

 an egocentric philosophy that ignores social causes.

2. having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered:

 an egocentric person; egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others.

Oh the Irony! The desire to purify history in your moral image IS the egocentrism. I am not bothering any history. I say "better let blame well alone.” But those who regard themselves as “the center of all things” are projecting their own sense of self righteousness onto history, stepping on FA’s, without ever asking the overwhelming majority of the climbing community, and lying that egocentric DIE committees are representative with their executive action.

And so I assume you support toppling statues of George Washington and Abraham lincoln? The former a slaveowner, the latter slow to abolish it and supported separation. How about da Vinci and Michelangelo? Maybe you agree with souping their paintings, since they were grave diggers? Should we rename the MLK streets and monuments? He was a misogynist, well past what was acceptable in the 60’s. How about Hellen Keller? She’s revered, and she was a eugenicist herself. How about planned parenthood? It started as a eugenicist plot to abort and euthanize specifically black babies. 

Learn the lessons of history, that the division between good and evil is not between nations, politics, religions, races, sex, or moments in time. Good and evil is decided upon the individual choices of every soul. 

Edit: I also hope the irony is not lost on anyone that those whining about Shockley are using devices full of transistors, the very thing for which he got the nobel prize. How infuriating for you that must be! Disavow it! Throw your device in the toilet! For more of such hillarious ironies and hypocrisies on shockley ceiling renaming: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/125772888/the-shockley-ceiling

edit edit: Regardless of what anyone thinks of whether Shockley Ceiling should be renamed or not, it is a clear violation of MP’s own commitment to NOT rename routes. That makes MP and OnX outright certified liars.