Very Super Hot Take

John Tuttlewrote:

Thanks Alex, for killing climbing, and then adding "Performance Art Climbing" ie Taipei 101 where climbing's connection to the natural world is clearly dead and the circus performance .....

If some guy (my bro, Alex ;-) climbing in a movie and up a building on tv killed climbing for anyone, what does that say about them and their relationship with climbing...

When any community gets very large, diversity increases and subgroups form. Maybe what people are lamenting is there being a more simple definition of what a 'climber' is, the ethic, perspective, etc... and now there are many different types of climbers.

Just because their are gym bros or influencers doesn't mean there aren't new folks who just want a quiet challenge in nature. You don't hear about them because they aren't spraying online, but they are there. 

The fact that climbing is more mainstream means that more people like you will be getting into it, whatever your approach is.

All the talk of inclusivity and exclusivity seems to mix up accessibility vs bias and gatekeeping, vs the social norms of the groups in question. Less representation does not prove bias or even necessarily accessibility, though they must contribute to some degree. It's just not nearly the whole story. 

Nobody encouraged me to climb. I started climbing buildings in the army when I locked myself out of my 3rd floor barracks room. That building was neither inclusive or exclusive. I needed no equipment. It was just fun. The white air assault guy in my class (including a female) took us all out to rappel off the cliff near the highway. These are just anecdotes, but do we have any of discrimination? 

Anthony Awrote:

If some guy (my bro, Alex ;-) climbing in a movie and up a building on tv killed climbing for anyone, what does that say about them and their relationship with climbing...

When any community gets very large, diversity increases and subgroups form. Maybe what people are lamenting is there being a more simple definition of what a 'climber' is, the ethic, perspective, etc... and now there are many different types of climbers.

Just because their are gym bros or influencers doesn't mean there aren't new folks who just want a quiet challenge in nature. You don't hear about them because they aren't spraying online, but they are there. 

The fact that climbing is more mainstream means that more people like you will be getting into it, whatever your approach is.

All the talk of inclusivity and exclusivity seems to mix up accessibility vs bias and gatekeeping, vs the social norms of the groups in question. Less representation does not prove bias or even necessarily accessibility, though they must contribute to some degree. It's just not nearly the whole story. 

Nobody encouraged me to climb. I started climbing buildings in the army when I locked myself out of my 3rd floor barracks room. That building was neither inclusive or exclusive. I needed no equipment. It was just fun. The white air assault guy in my class (including a female) took us all out to rappel off the cliff near the highway. These are just anecdotes, but do we have any of discrimination? 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You know I am kidding, right? :)

Some guy Alex has absolutely nothing to do with my climbing. Nor does any other climber unless they are building/testing gear or actually belaying me (or towing me up) on a route.' Then I might pay attention to their information. This is not some kind of narcissism on my part, it's just reality. Other climbers don't live in my head. I've got my own projects.

THAT is the actual point: There are no "climbing movements" just as there aren't in Art. It's all in people's heads. Creators just create or Climbers climb, because that is what they are compelled to do. But their art has nothing to do with you, unless you decide it does for some reason. Borrow what you will, or not.

If Climbing is in a Golden Age for you, then it is.

If Climbing is dead to you, it is.

If Climbing is inclusive, exclusive, crowded, fadish, traditional, bouldering or bigwalling and everything in between for you, then it is.

But there is no Climbing, only paths. Sometimes that takes us over the summit of "X" but it's just a path to the Valley below where we go back to chopping wood and carrying water. You don't stay and live on the Summit. It is not your destiny; it was just a bump in the road.

You are not "someone who climbs mountains". You are walking, talking stardust that cuts stone and carries rivers, like wood and water and (food item) to sustain your life while you ponder this creation via your own path and, hopefully, some stardust apple of your eye walks with you. Because life is sharing.

take take take takewrote:

Climbing isn’t inclusive or exclusive, it’s literally just a movement like running or walking. And also like running or walking it is 100% accessible and available to literally every single free and able bodied human on this planet without exception. Anyone can go climb anything they want any time. If your justification is gear costs money and non “white guys” are poor or something, remember that the legends of the golden age literally ate cat food for entire seasons and lived off of a few dollars a week which is entirely possible today for those motivated to climb. Yes you still need to take the initiative to get off the couch and show up, but any kind person could show up to any crag any time with literally nothing but shoes and would have strangers willing to show you the ropes and share gear within 5 minutes, especially minorities because of how inclusive the community is.

 Not looking for any confrontation here I just hate the insinuation that there’s something wrong with the climbing community because it’s not perfectly represented by every single demographic at all times. What’s much more important is it is ACCESSIBLE for every single imaginable demographic always and the community is so significantly more welcoming to everyone than any other sport by such a large margin that we have more grants and programs to get marginalized groups into climbing than we do all other kinds combined. 

OMG. This is exactly what I think Nate was calling out in his original post.

You really think that because it's POSSIBLE to live in your car and eat cat food to climb, that makes it accessible? There are also lots of penniless homeless people living in the hills and canyons of  Malibu. That doesn't make living in Malibu "accessible" to normal folks.

Here's a cold hard fact: People dealing with real poverty, by which I mean most of the people struggling to feed kids, buy food, pay for medications, just get by in our society don't have the TIME to engage in sports like climbing or to learn how to do it or to pay for a gym membership or any of that. They are struggling to just survive. And that segment has grown tremendously in the last 20 years. That is the biggest divide in terms of accessibility, not race, or gender or sexual orientation. It's really hard to take up climbing (or anything) when you're working 3 minimum wage jobs just to get by.

Most "dirtbags" I have known are doing it as a choice. They almost always have had a family or a career they could fall back on when things get hard. That's not the same as true poverty.

Andrew Ricewrote:

OMG. This is exactly what I think Nate was calling out in his original post.

You really think that because it's POSSIBLE to live in your car and eat cat food to climb, that makes it accessible? There are also lots of penniless homeless people living in the hills and canyons of Malibu. That doesn't make living in Malibu "accessible" to normal folks.

Here's a cold hard fact: People dealing with real poverty, by which I mean most of the people struggling to feed kids, buy food, pay for medications, just get by in our society don't have the TIME to engage in sports like climbing or to learn how to do it or to pay for a gym membership or any of that. They are struggling to just survive. And that segment has grown tremendously in the last 20 years. That is the biggest divide in terms of accessibility, not race, or gender or sexual orientation. It's really hard to take up climbing (or anything) when you're working 3 minimum wage jobs just to get by.

Most "dirtbags" I have known are doing it as a choice. They almost always have had a family or a career they could fall back on when things get hard. That's not the same as true poverty.

Are there skateboarding/surfing/curling/figure skating website forums where they navel-gaze in a circular firing squad with this degree of intensity and verbosity about whether their silly activities are inclusive enough? Or is it unique to climbing? So it takes some privilege and resources to climb or do other superfluous hobbies - can't that just be a self-evident fact, a way of the world, and not a "problem" to be solved? Or is the exquisite feeling of guilt and shame, and the intended transference to to others, the driver here? 

PS - About the "dirtbag" comment above, I fully agree. I started climbing in 1999 and quickly realized that at least a majority of these "poor dirtbags" had suspiciously aesthetic bone structure and perfect teeth and upon inquiry turned out to have rich families taking care of all their needs, there was always a safety net. But, life is not fair, and if a rich kid wants to climb and camp instead of becoming a slumlord or venture capitalist, good for them that they at least aren't hurting anyone.

bryanswrote:

Are there skateboarding/surfing/curling/figure skating website forums where they navel-gaze in a circular firing squad with this degree of intensity and verbosity about whether their silly activities are inclusive enough? Or is it unique to climbing? So it takes some privilege and resources to climb or do other superfluous hobbies - can't that just be a self-evident fact, a way of the world, and not a "problem" to be solved? Or is the exquisite feeling of guilt and shame, and the intended transference to to others, the driver here? 

PS - About the "dirtbag" comment above, I fully agree. I started climbing in 1999 and quickly realized that at least a majority of these "poor dirtbags" had suspiciously aesthetic bone structure and perfect teeth and upon inquiry turned out to have rich families taking care of all their needs, there was always a safety net. But, life is not fair, and if a rich kid wants to climb and camp instead of becoming a slumlord or venture capitalist, good for them that they at least aren't hurting anyone.

You ask a great question. The answer is no. Nobody ever talks about the "surfing community" as if it means anything other than someone stealing your flip flops off the beach and smashing your car window. 

Personally, I don't think of inclusivity per se as a problem to be solved. But I do think that hostility in the "climbing community" toward women, gays, and racial minorities has been pretty rampant in the past and continues in a lot of places. And I do see that as a problem. And that's why a lot of people find climbing not welcoming or inclusive. 

John Tuttlewrote:

You know I am kidding, right? :)

..... There are no "climbing movements" just as there aren't in Art. It's all in people's heads. ....

. You are walking, talking stardust ..... Because life is sharing.

Too right. :-)

John Tuttlewrote:

You are not "someone who climbs mountains". You are walking, talking stardust that cuts stone and carries rivers, like wood and water and (food item) to sustain your life while you ponder this creation via your own path and, hopefully, some stardust apple of your eye walks with you. Because life is sharing.

This passage is lowkey beautiful poetry.

bryanswrote: 

PS - About the "dirtbag" comment above, I fully agree. I started climbing in 1999 and quickly realized that at least a majority of these "poor dirtbags" had suspiciously aesthetic bone structure and perfect teeth and upon inquiry turned out to have rich families taking care of all their needs, there was always a safety net. But, life is not fair, and if a rich kid wants to climb and camp instead of becoming a slumlord or venture capitalist, good for them that they at least aren't hurting anyone.

https://www.climbing.com/culture-climbing/the-only-important-rule-climbing/

(For what it's worth, I don't believe this story is veritable, but I do believe in its truth.)

There's something to be said for What We Owe to Each Other and the inherent obligations to civilization of those born into family wealth and protection from the natural hardships of life.

"Do no harm." is not a sufficient edict in the modern era.

One must seek to do good.

I personally know a few billionaires. They're not evil people seeking to do harm. They have created valuable products, systems, technologies. They've done work to accumulate wealth and create productive institutions.

The thing is, they don't give a shit about you or your friends or your kids.

One of them bought a house in Seattle to avoid California income tax when selling his San Francisco based company for $10,000,000,000. 

When I asked him about his hometown, he said something like "it's largely a cesspool full of lazy idiots." instead of something like "I'm grateful to have been raised well by a good family in an area where not everyone has those advantages. I'm eager to help address the social problems I witnessed on a daily basis, which I found upsetting and confusing as a kid, and now as an adult I find them tragic and heartbreaking."

God damnit I wish Theodore Roosevelt was still around. 

I'm so fucking tired of this shit.

When I moved to Detroit from the suburbs at the age of 19 (or was I 18?), I was also eager to fix social problems. I tried for a few years to engage in problem-fixing with various flavors of leftists. Continued living here once I got sick of that. Now I think people here are largely just lazy (and violent) idiots. And I don't give a shit about them or their friends, though I do wish their kids the best, as their situation is really quite tragic. 

So yeah, it's mostly a cesspool full of lazy idiots. I have never for a second thought I owe them anything because of my background. The people I owe are primarily my parents and ancestors, perhaps with some debt to the founders and builders of this country, and I believe that debt is repaid by being a productive member of American society and not squandering my gifts. There's a further discussion to be had about an obligation to assist the disabled and needy, but I don't know if that's really who I'm talking about here. 

(I didn't move down here intending to fix problems btw, it was for personal reasons.)

Brent Kellywrote:

I personally know a few billionaires. They're not evil people seeking to do harm. They have created valuable products, systems, technologies. They've done work to accumulate wealth and create productive institutions.

The thing is, they don't give a shit about you or your friends or your kids.

So much truth here. I know a fair number of billionaires, too. I differentiate between the ones who "earned" it and the ones born into it. The ones who earned it are largely lopsided brained geniuses who got lucky on a tech invention or a financial play. But at least they did something for the reward. Most of the ones I have known in this situation had some perspective about it.

The born into billions crowd is overwhelmingly slanted toward the fucked up and the terrible. The shadow created by that kind of affluence and the fact that your parents or grandparents earned it, not you, can just be a gigantic black hole. 

Chris Mwrote:

When I moved to Detroit from the suburbs at the age of 19 (or was I 18?), I was also eager to fix social problems. I tried for a few years to engage in problem-fixing with various flavors of leftists. Continued living here once I got sick of that. Now I think people here are largely just lazy (and violent) idiots. And I don't give a shit about them or their friends, though I do wish their kids the best, as their situation is really quite tragic. 

So yeah, it's mostly a cesspool full of lazy idiots. I have never for a second thought I owe them anything because of my background. The people I owe are primarily my parents and ancestors, perhaps with some debt to the founders and builders of this country, and I believe that debt is repaid by being a productive member of American society and not squandering my gifts. There's a further discussion to be had about an obligation to assist the disabled and needy, but I don't know if that's really who I'm talking about here. 

(I didn't move down here intending to fix problems btw, it was for personal reasons.)

What was your motivation for wanting to fix social problems in your late teens and early twenties?

What was it you got sick of?

Was your problem-fixing engagement exclusively with Leftists? 

Why are you bring left/right into the discussion?

What's your net worth?

How do people become lazy? Violent? Idiotic? Just born under a bad moon? Or...?

Why choose to not give a shit?

Why not choose to live somewhere you don't deem a miserable cesspool?

Did you read and digest that Wikipedia page on Contractualism?

What do you produce / how are you productive?

Who are the children of those lazy, violent idiots indebted to? Do they owe their parents gratitude? Their ancestors? The founders of the United States? The first residents of Detroit?

Asking all this in as neutral a tone as possible. 

Genuinely asking questions I'm curious to hear your answers too; not sparring or laying traps.

Brent Kellywrote:

What was your motivation for wanting to fix social problems in your late teens and early twenties?

Crippling levels of empathy that have gone away as I've gotten older, as well as ideology and resentment towards "the establishment". 

What was it you got sick of?

The posturing, infighting, one-upmanship among the mutual aid activists, and in some ways the inefficacy and meaninglessness of the actual actions taken... but mainly the ingratitude from people. I was helping deliver rescued food to people's doorsteps, and seeing delicious fresh food left out to rot on the steps where I had dropped it off was enough for me. Food that I probably couldn't afford at the time. 

I should mention that the people who were running the food rescue program are, to my knowledge, still active, and if there's a Christian God then some of them are probably Saints. 

Was your problem-fixing engagement exclusively with Leftists? 

As far as I can remember, yes. 

Why are you bring left/right into the discussion?

Well, there's some level of political tone already, but it was an important detail that the work I was doing had a political character in one way or another. Otherwise I wouldn't bring it up. But I am also decidedly rightwing if that matters. 

What's your net worth?

None of your business. But I don't have a college degree (by my own doing), and my net worth is very small. Though probably OK or even good when compared to others in my demographic. I believe I will have a pretty good career, because I work hard and am intelligent. Though I used to live like a roach, and did some grimy work to get where I am now. 

How do people become lazy? Violent? Idiotic? Just born under a bad moon? Or...?

Lots of different ways. I think what I see around me is beyond correction. I'll leave it at that. 

Why choose to not give a shit?

Maybe because I'm selfish, but I believe that in our natural state we care about our families and those we choose to trust and include in our social circle. I believe what goes around comes around, I love helping people I know and paying it forward, though I've learned to be more careful about lending my assistance or borrowing out my goods because even those who posture as soooo tender-hearted and close to you will hang you out to dry. So I am careful with whose troubles I give a shit about. 

Why not choose to live somewhere you don't deem a miserable cesspool?

Working on it!

Did you read and digest that Wikipedia page on Contractualism?

Maybe you can point me to an explanation of contractualism that aligns with your beliefs, because that page is huge and lists multiple philosophers with differing definitions. Is there one you agree with more than others? 

What do you produce / how are you productive?

I have a job that impacts the environment around me very concretely (I design things that get built, often in the city I'm in), and the people building those things depend on me to be precise and efficient in how I work. Also I make pretty good music. I think art is important and I have no problem with counting it alongside my job as productive work, especially given how damaged our culture's relationship to art is. 

Importantly, I don't go out of my way to hurt the environment or people around me... something that can't be said of some of the people I see living here. I mean, it's almost like trashing the environment around you and hurting people is part of the culture. Maybe it's even taken the place of virtue. 

Who are the children of those lazy, violent idiots indebted to? Do they owe their parents gratitude? Their ancestors? The founders of the United States? The first residents of Detroit?

Good question, and a head scratcher. Certainly their parents and ancestors to the degree that they have been productive and have setup a good life for them, as well as their country (I explained earlier in extremely basic terms how you give to your country as an American). Other than that I don't know, I suppose there's cultural differences and it's for each person and associated group to decide who they are indebted to and how they want to operate. This manifests itself very differently across cultures for myriad reasons. I think my thinking is pretty American, from a cultural standpoint. 

Asking all this in as neutral a tone as possible. 

Genuinely asking questions I'm curious to hear your answers too; not sparring or laying traps.

Yeah, I'm not out to get anyone either. I think this is a worthwhile discussion, though it's a shame the thread is drifting so much. Maybe someone can get us back on track. 

Also I don't think about this stuff much, so I don't want you to get the idea that I'm regularly philosophizing about it and refining my position, or that my position is even defensible, maybe it's not. Hopefully you find my replies somewhat interesting if nothing else. 

It does seem like several people are talking about their politics and not actually about climbing. I’m going to go ask a politician who never climbed about the best kind of placement for a pink tricam. So vice versa is bound to be equally useless.

I think I’m still pissed at the Olympics. They decided that “climbing” is some mishmash of bouldering and single pitch climbing and apparently even speed climbing. Almost no one did all those things. There’s lots of little sub “climbings.” And, as lots of folks mentioned, those can be going in different directions. It might be the golden era in some sub communities, and the post apocalypse in others. But you only have to engage in the one’s you want to.

Cheers, Chris. 

I found your replies interesting and appreciable. I want to say thank you for the work you did to help with the food rescue program. I do understand how demoralizing that must have felt.

For what it's worth, I inquired about your net worth as a means of tying the discussion back to the jumping off point of the "political" detour - that "safety net / trust fund dirtbags" might be cosplaying "the plight of the common man" somewhat disingenuously, but maybe that's better than them seeking to join an industry of predatory profits or using outsized wealth to continue subjugating the little guy.

I don't personally subscribe to a belief that those struggling to find their footing should be expected to tithe and perform charitable actions of self-sacrifice. I do subscribe to the notion of those with enough to not worry, should be worrying about their neighbors welfare before seeking to accumulate a surplus of capital. This doesn't necessarily mean charity - an industrial effort to provide win-win value seems good enough to me...

...but the billionaire who made their fortune selling cigarettes and other addictions... that's who I think needs to find Jesus. And I'm a scientific agnostic humanist who doesn't really believe in the Christian God I was raised to believe in. 

As for the dirtbag climber who comes from privilege and just wants to live the good life - I agree that's less deplorable than a wealthy kid who goes into Mergers and Acquisitions and learns how to lay people off for maximum shareholder value, social value creation be damned. I just want those wealthy dirtbags to realize they could be contributing in some way beyond the hedonism of aimless thrill-seeking or confused and vapid performative neo-spiritualism.

I honestly can't fully or deeply explain Contractualism. I'm still working to make sure I fully grok the philosophy I've adopted. But essentially I see it as a formalization of the judaeo-christian Golden Rule -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." -- which, I'm enough of an autistic literalist comedian to recognize the flaws in that oversimplification (e.g. "I like my meals covered in 100,000 scoville hot sauce, so I will do that for my friends!")  

So for me, it comes down to "without enabling negative outcomes, show others the respect and consideration, the kindness and empathy and tolerance and patience that I would hope to be granted in similar circumstances". And maybe a little bit of "with great power comes great responsibility."

And for a formal definition of Scanlon's Contractualism, i believe its essentially "Keep your word (within reason) and we are all beholden to an obligation to each other as bounded by rational notions of interdependence and individual responsibility." 

This has helped me keep my hope for humanity, as it sounds like we've both struggled with the sense of wanting to be generous and trusting, and finding our efforts wasted or taken for granted in ways that feel deeply disrespectful and insulting, if not villainous. It allows me to set boundaries for justifying the limits of my compassion or generosity. I enjoy my life when I find myself working to nurture positive outcomes, and I find myself largely miserable when eager to combat negative actors. 

I guess I get a lot of mileage out of Deadwood and Milch's humanism, and this scene comes to mind - something about helping people in the way they want to be helped, respecting their humanity, agency, and autonomy, while still working to encourage them to see things in a rational and humane light...

ANYWAYS

I don't actually feel this thread has gotten all that political. I think it was a vague, open ended prompt with no objective correct answer and room for infinite subjective opinions, so we've walked to the point of discussing philosophy more-so than politics.

If the "STONEMASTERS" was a golden age of climbing, I think it's important to recognize that a lot of those characters came from wealth and privilege and were able to retreat to comfort at will. Some struggled with severe mental health disorders. Some were selfish and self-aggrandizing, some were doing it for pure-hearted love of the game (so to speak), and some were just trying to find their sense of belonging within a tribe of likeminded misfits.

I also suppose I'm less interested in the Golden Age of climbing, 

and more-so interested in espousing the Golden Rule of climbing, which I have subscribed to ever since I first heard it described as

"

Remember your priorities when adventuring:

Come home safe.

Come home friends.

Come home happy/successful/having summitted.

In that order.

"

Bah. Fuck me. I'm tired. And being sappy and shit. I need to climb more. Maybe this weekend.

Cheers

Dope music, by the way.

(Yea, Olympics format has been a weird deviation from the way we've thought about rec and comp climbing. It was sold as a necessary evil though, right? For adoption purposes? I think it's getting better, though, yeah?

I know way more about Olympic Fencing than I do Olympic Climbing or even standard comp climbing, though. So, mercifully, and far overdue, I will stfu.)

Sep Mwrote:

It does seem like several people are talking about their politics and not actually about climbing. I’m going to go ask a politician who never climbed about the best kind of placement for a pink tricam. So vice versa is bound to be equally useless.

Key difference: We live in a democracy where politics is not just an activity for professionals. It's actually a social duty shared by all.

Unlike pink tricam placements. 

Brent Kellywrote:

Cheers, Chris. 

I found your replies interesting and appreciable. I want to say thank you for the work you did to help with the food rescue program. I do understand how demoralizing that must have felt.

For what it's worth, I inquired about your net worth as a means of tying the discussion back to the jumping off point of the "political" detour - that "safety net / trust fund dirtbags" might be cosplaying "the plight of the common man" somewhat disingenuously, but maybe that's better than them seeking to join an industry of predatory profits or using outsized wealth to continue subjugating the little guy.

I don't personally subscribe to a belief that those struggling to find their footing should be expected to tithe and perform charitable actions of self-sacrifice. I do subscribe to the notion of those with enough to not worry, should be worrying about their neighbors welfare before seeking to accumulate a surplus of capital. This doesn't necessarily mean charity - an industrial effort to provide win-win value seems good enough to me...

...but the billionaire who made their fortune selling cigarettes and other addictions... that's who I think needs to find Jesus. And I'm a scientific agnostic humanist who doesn't really believe in the Christian God I was raised to believe in. 

As for the dirtbag climber who comes from privilege and just wants to live the good life - I agree that's less deplorable than a wealthy kid who goes into Mergers and Acquisitions and learns how to lay people off for maximum shareholder value, social value creation be damned. I just want those wealthy dirtbags to realize they could be contributing in some way beyond the hedonism of aimless thrill-seeking or confused and vapid performative neo-spiritualism.

I honestly can't fully or deeply explain Contractualism. I'm still working to make sure I fully grok the philosophy I've adopted. But essentially I see it as a formalization of the judaeo-christian Golden Rule -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." -- which, I'm enough of an autistic literalist comedian to recognize the flaws in that oversimplification (e.g. "I like my meals covered in 100,000 scoville hot sauce, so I will do that for my friends!")  

So for me, it comes down to "without enabling negative outcomes, show others the respect and consideration, the kindness and empathy and tolerance and patience that I would hope to be granted in similar circumstances". And maybe a little bit of "with great power comes great responsibility."

And for a formal definition of Scanlon's Contractualism, i believe its essentially "Keep your word (within reason) and we are all beholden to an obligation to each other as bounded by rational notions of interdependence and individual responsibility." 

This has helped me keep my hope for humanity, as it sounds like we've both struggled with the sense of wanting to be generous and trusting, and finding our efforts wasted or taken for granted in ways that feel deeply disrespectful and insulting, if not villainous. It allows me to set boundaries for justifying the limits of my compassion or generosity. I enjoy my life when I find myself working to nurture positive outcomes, and I find myself largely miserable when eager to combat negative actors. 

I guess I get a lot of mileage out of Deadwood and Milch's humanism, and this scene comes to mind - something about helping people in the way they want to be helped, respecting their humanity, agency, and autonomy, while still working to encourage them to see things in a rational and humane light...

ANYWAYS

I don't actually feel this thread has gotten all that political. I think it was a vague, open ended prompt with no objective correct answer and room for infinite subjective opinions, so we've walked to the point of discussing philosophy more-so than politics.

If the "STONEMASTERS" was a golden age of climbing, I think it's important to recognize that a lot of those characters came from wealth and privilege and were able to retreat to comfort at will. Some struggled with severe mental health disorders. Some were selfish and self-aggrandizing, some were doing it for pure-hearted love of the game (so to speak), and some were just trying to find their sense of belonging within a tribe of likeminded misfits.

I also suppose I'm less interested in the Golden Age of climbing, 

and more-so interested in espousing the Golden Rule of climbing, which I have subscribed to ever since I first heard it described as

"

Remember your priorities when adventuring:

Come home safe.

Come home friends.

Come home happy/successful/having summitted.

In that order.

"

Bah. Fuck me. I'm tired. And being sappy and shit. I need to climb more. Maybe this weekend.

Cheers

Dope music, by the way.

(Yea, Olympics format has been a weird deviation from the way we've thought about rec and comp climbing. It was sold as a necessary evil though, right? For adoption purposes? I think it's getting better, though, yeah?

I know way more about Olympic Fencing than I do Olympic Climbing or even standard comp climbing, though. So, mercifully, and far overdue, I will stfu.)

Can't agree with the last bit, for myself. "Safe", sure, "friends", hopefully.....

But "happy/successful/having summited"?

Naw.

Just, "put pants on, gave it a shot". 

YMMV.

:-)

Andrew Ricewrote:

Key difference: We live in a democracy where politics is not just an activity for professionals. It's actually a social duty shared by all.

Unlike pink tricam placements. 

 I mean, kinda? Our social duty is to JUDGE political positions. I hope we’re not expected to have a coherent political philosophy to participate. I don’t.

And I don’t think I know anyone who does. I even know several folks who just ascribe to a party’s platform, which is basically the opposite of a coherent political philosophy.

Either way, my hope wasn’t to kill the conversation. Just try and steer it back to climbing golden ages. But it looks like I borked it.

Sep Mwrote:

 I hope we’re not expected to have a coherent political philosophy to participate. I don’t.

And I don’t think I know anyone who does. 

I have a coherent and cogent political philosophy you can borrow, if you'd like.

It's not entirely comprehensive, but it's a surprisingly effective razor:

Man, the 80s seem like they were a lot of fun.

I was born in 1988.

Anyone want to share how the 1980s was golden for climbing, from personal experience?

Brent Kellywrote:

I have a coherent and cogent political philosophy you can borrow, if you'd like.

It's not entirely comprehensive, but it's a surprisingly effective razor:

Man, the 80s seem like they were a lot of fun.

I was born in 1988.

Anyone want to share how the 1980s was golden for climbing, from personal experience?

Lived in Yosemite Valley for almost 3 years in a real house with a 30 second commute to work. 4 days on, 3 days off all summer. Guaranteed hours all winter.

Did a few choice FAs.

Only drawback: No chicks, especially in winter.

Hot Take Nation