Misogynistic and problematic route names in rock climbing

I get triggered by free soloist.  Please add this behavior to the ban list.  

Who is going to decide what is offensive? Who is going to decide what the new name is? Will a commitee (Did I spell that right? Is mispelling that offensive to a linguist?) approve the new name? Will the first ascencionist be consulted? Will (Insert appropriate pronoun here.) be punished or exhonerated at that point? BTW... what is an SJW?

if you want to be an ass have at it..  

The Raven wrote:

I like when this topic comes up because it reminds of one of my best friends, who's Italian, and likes to trade ethnic jabs with me. Sometimes I refer to him as a ...certain famous video game plumber.
He was ranting one day after getting into a car accident at a busy interchange, and after hearing him out I asked him if Bowser had nailed him with a spiny shell. After he punched me we both laughed like hell. Fun times.

Can anyone explain to me why I would want to make climbing more inclusive and equitable?

As an average climber, not somebody making a buck selling the sport, seems to me there are too many climbers already.

It would be better to find ways to drive some of the current participants away, rather than try to entice more into the sport.

Anonymous wrote: Oh you guys, this isn't about routes names, it's about votes. It's either working very well and will get Trump elected again or it's backfiring and will get Trump elected again. 

Are you saying that every voter who opposes Trump would think that this route name censorship idea is a good one? 

Mark E Dixon wrote: Can anyone explain to me why I would want to make climbing more inclusive and equitable?

As an average climber, not somebody making a buck selling the sport, seems to me there are too many climbers already.

It would be better to find ways to drive some of the current participants away, rather than try to entice more into the sport.

I'd agree with that except that it would be best to find a way to do that it that was equally likely to drive EVERYONE away, rather than targeting any particular group. 

Optimistic wrote:

I'd agree with that except that it would be best to find a way to do that it that was equally likely to drive EVERYONE away, rather than targeting any particular group. 

Works for me

we named a route titties and cake.  it was my birthday and I gave isa the FA redpoint of a route that I had bolted.   she top belayed me and when I got up there she had balloons, cake and glitter for my birthday. one thing led to another and somhow the balloons got inside her shirt for silly photos. the name made perfect sense and was funny as heck. obviously somone will find offense with that but that person needs to lighten up and have some fun once in awhile. 

You do know that the CBC is owned by the Liberal Party of Canada right? Its a platform to push their libtard ideals and outrage culture. They are not exactly pro rock climbing. When the liberals were in power in Ontario they tried to silently pass an all out ban on climbing in Southern Ontario.

Stfu?

Anonymous wrote:

No. That's not what I was saying. Perhaps try again? 

Well I'm happy that you weren't saying that, although if you had been, I'd have to agree that sadly a startling number of my fellow lefties (including, apparently, the OP) seem to have become hostile to the concept of free speech. 

Anyway, I read what you wrote again and I still don't know what you were driving at.

 Social Justice Warrior:  "An individual that is defined by their constant attacking or addressing of anything they find inappropriate, offensive, or triggering in their eyes. People that promote and address the social issues that truly matter on social media should be applauded, but social justice warriors are in a league of their own. They repeatedly bash any content (even if its innocent) and aggressively call for the downfall of the person who carelessly offended them.

The REAL problem with social justice warriors is their superficial mentality. There are many issues that are heavily affecting many people across the world but these individuals detract from many of the real problems but continuing to address and argue about meaningless topics in order to boost themselves in the eyes of their peers."

The article is pretty good and she offers a legitimate criticism, but I wouldn't expect a toxic community like this one to be able to discuss it properly. This is the wrong platform.

Climbing is historically very bro, and that's reflected in the names of the routes we enjoy. Sexist route names do alienate some people, as do racist and homophobic ones. If your response to critique is only to attack, I might wonder why you are being so sensitive.

Mark Roberts wrote: The article is pretty good and she offers a legitimate criticism, but I wouldn't expect a toxic community like this one to be able to discuss it properly. This is the wrong platform.

Climbing is historically very bro, and that's reflected in the names of the routes we enjoy. Sexist route names do alienate some people, as do racist and homophobic ones. If your response to critique is only to attack, I might wonder why you are being so sensitive.

Would a "proper" discussion on "the right platform" inevitably conclude that censorship was the only correct response to these route names? 

The crux of the issue is there is no climbing culture. We didn't all come up the same way. To try and change the group thinking when there isn't really a group is futile.
How many FA folks regularly read this forum nonsense? How many of them will change what they do because someone linked an article on MP and folks made fun of it?
If this truly is anyone's button issue I hope you are doing much more productive and open debates with people to encourage change. If not, you are trolling yourself..

Optimistic wrote:

Would a "proper" discussion on "the right platform" inevitably conclude that censorship was the only correct response to these route names? 

First of all, of course not, but have you seen the responses in this thread?
Second: Censorship? Really? That's the word you'd use to describe a community who wants to discuss and potentially rename some routes? You have no idea what censorship is if that's what you think is happening.

noun

1. 1.the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Renaming routes because someone finds them offensive is kinda the definition of censorship buddy. Just because you have an agenda doesn't change the meaning of words. It's scary how many young people play these word games. 

We're talking about rock climbing route names, not Confederate War heroes.  I think retroactively changing the route names is a bit ridiculous, especially when one considers all the guidebooks that would suddenly become obsolete if they're being cross-referenced with this site.  If you're that offended by a route name, shorten it, abbreviate it, or make it an acronym for personal use.

Maybe the Mormons have a clean guidebook you could use?