What's up with Rumney Hinterlands!?

Schuyler Baer wrote:

You realize slippery slope is literally a logical fallacy, right? I don't get why this is so hard to understand for so many people. If the name of a route is clearly offensive and hateful (racist, sexist, etc.) towards a group of people, then it should be redacted/changed. There is no slippery slope here.

You realize that when there is cause and effect (A leads to B), then there is no fallacy. A in this case being well meaning people re-naming/redacting route names at their leisure, B being MP becoming a lot less useful as a result of the overreach of the censoring process. I may call your argument a straw man. I don't get why this is so hard to understand for so many people. If the route is clearly not offensive or hateful towards a group of people then it shouldn't be changed. There is a slippery slope here.

Ryan K wrote:

 There is a slippery slope here.

Not from what I see here. Looks like most changes are debated fiercely. This is how consensus if formed on where to draw the line of when something is offensive enough to be redacted. The line may not end up where you, or anybody else, would like it. However, a debate is being held and arguments are being made. 

A slippery slope would mean one small step (changing/redacting one name) would lead to a unstoppable fall that results in a large percentage of routes being changed. The number of routes being redacted is a very small percentage of the total number on mountain project.

As I said early, this slope is not slippery at all. It seems to be very high friction.

Ryan K wrote:

A in this case being well meaning people re-naming/redacting route names at their leisure, B being MP becoming a lot less useful as a result of the overreach of the censoring process.

You have correctly identified the enormous logical gap between A and B that causes the slippery slope to be a fallacy. A is not happening (as mentioned above there is huge pushback and nobody is doing anything "at their leisure"), and even if A did happen as you phrased it, it does not follow that B would happen. You'd have to redact over 22,000 names for 1% of the database to be affected.

Schuyler Baer wrote:

Slippery slope:

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

In this case, you're arguing that changing racist and sexist route names shouldn't happen because if we change racist and sexist route names now, we will eventually start changing non-racist and non-sexist route names for other reasons, such as disliking the FA. That is a giant, unexplained leap that I don't think would happen. 

As far as names being changed right now that aren't clearly racist/sexist, maybe that's because we have an imperfect flagging system and one person running this website. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to help and do better.

Yes, the slippery slope is technically a logical fallacy if you say something like "If A happens, B will follow". For most things that people would argue about, no one can be certain that A policy will lead to B result. 

We can, however say "A" policy might lead to "B" result. Real life isn't debate club. We can look at historical precedent, current trends, and attitudes in the popular conversation. There are plenty of people openly calling for what amounts to censorship in Europe and North America. From what I can see, some of those people have co-opted this movement to rename truly disgusting route names. 

So yes, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy if we are speaking in absolutes and participating in debate club, but in real life we can and should consider hypothetical responses to today's actions and policies. There are plenty of historical examples of "slippery slopes" that have led to bad outcomes that could have been avoided with more prudent application of critical thinking.

Some light reading regarding the applicability of slippery slope arguments in persuasion: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-thinking/201909/critically-thinking-about-the-slippery-slope-fallacy

ETA:

BigRed11 wrote:

You have correctly identified the enormous logical gap between A and B that causes the slippery slope to be a fallacy. A is not happening (as mentioned above there is huge pushback and nobody is doing anything "at their leisure"), and even if A did happen as you phrased it, it does not follow that B would happen. You'd have to redact over 22,000 names for 1% of the database to be affected.

That is not the way I see it. I think that the idea that the "community" or a committee (barf) should have the power to decide what route names are acceptable might lead to a degradation of free speech. Obviously Mt. Project is private property and Nick has every right to limit what is said on his property, but that doesn't mean that's what he should do. Also, I realize that climbing route names are not super important in the grand scheme of things, but the movement to rename every route name that could possibly have an offensive or non-PC name is a reflection of a dangerous shift in public perception of the right to free speech. Many people do not truly believe that people should have freedom of speech and language that they deem "offensive" should be excluded from public discourse. It doesn't take a genius to see how those attitudes about free speech could lead to persecution of people with different beliefs than those held by those in power or the mainstream.

Just to be clear, there have been many route names over the years that I don't like saying out loud. I have often wished the FA was a little more mature in naming routes. I mostly was making a counter point to the assertion that a slippery slope argument is ALWAYS a logical fallacy. I think censorship is one of the few areas I would personally regard a slippery slope argument to have some traction in many instances. I have never named a route, but I often come up with silly names for potential routes. Some of them could be offensive to people. I'm honestly a bit surprised by some of the routes that are getting redacted, as I wouldn't have thought them offensive. And, so yeah, it does seem that certain people are making a sport out of getting offended. Maybe I'm part of the problem, even though I try not to be. As someone stated above, this is a private website, and speech can and possibly should be regulated. I personally have encountered a lot of routes with the redacted names on my searches, and have found MP less useful as a result. 

Unless one thinks that no route should ever be renamed under any circumstances, then you are on the 'slope' as much as the next person.

Sean Kurnas wrote:

Unless one thinks that no route should ever be renamed under any circumstances, then you are on the 'slope' as much as the next person.

Why rename a route, unless you are the FA? 

Insert name wrote:

Why rename a route, unless you are the FA? 

Because there is some language that I think is demeaning, insulting, or alienating, and I don't want to become a megaphone for that language by repeating it.

Do you think I should be forced to do so?

Sean Kurnas wrote:

Unless one thinks that no route should ever be renamed under any circumstances, then you are on the 'slope' as much as the next person.

Cool. You can put me under the "please don't rename anything without FA consent/input" column.

SinRopa wrote:

How are you being "forced" to repeat anything?

There's plenty of language out there that I don't choose to repeat, but that doesn't mean I favor censoring it in the first place.

If we agree that I can't be forced to say anything, then it seems I have the right to call the route whatever I want.  AKA renaming it.  And if everyone has that right, then it seems that groups of people can get together and agree on a new name.  And change it in databases and guidebooks too.

I'm not arguing that any particular route should or shouldn't be renamed, or that you have to agree with it.  But I don't see any reason, in principle, why it couldn't ever be done.

M Sprague wrote:

As I discussed in the Administrator's forum, silly as it may seam to some of you, it is a small temporary pushback protest in solidarity with those who are wrongfully having their route names changed and the absurd notion that intent doesn't matter and is trumped by somebody making something up in their own mind to to be "offended" about. It seemed to me that names were being redacted with very little attempt to actually find out why routes had particular names. In doing so, it essentially labels a route author as an asshole who is so bad their expressions have to be silenced. It is not against the changing of legitimately strongly offensive content, rather against mob mentality.

I can explain more, but frankly I am burnt out talking about the subject atm and have to get ready for the weekend, so I'll have to get back to you. The main point is not to assume the worst in others and recognize that maybe you just don't understand a name. The principle goes beyond route names and is important for society. 

Glad I dug into this more! Just posted on another thread: mountainproject.com/forum/t…

I agree with you. I don't think there's any shortcut to hashing out the objectionable names on an individual basis.

My main point is that it's arbitrary to insist that names just can't be changed.  And I don't buy the argument that having the conversation leads inexorably to mass censorship.

Alan Rubin wrote:

Still censorship. It is part of a disturbing trend across the country. The trouble with the 'if it makes some people "uncomfortable"' approach it is that it is totally subjective and really is a 'slippery slope'. How do you even define "uncomfortable" in his context? Also who's discomfort should 'control'? Sure right now it is groups for which most of us have sympathy but once the precedent is set, then in the future it will be others with whom many of us may not agree or even those who have a grudge against the person who put up the route ( this has actually already happened elsewhere). If you haven't done so already I recommend reading 1984 by George Orwell. He may have had the year wrong but too much of what he predicted is now coming true.

I totally agree and I’d like to point out that you the self anointed “good people” might not always be in charge of the process.  Bad people get their turn as well like it or not.   These are very short sighted actions by foolish people imo.   As with all things I predict this will end badly .

Sean Kurnas wrote:

Isn't that question the whole point of the discussion?

Almost everyone agrees that there is a line.  That's what makes the slippery slope rhetoric so aggravating; it applies just as much to your line as it does to another's.

There is no line once you commit to censorship all lines cease to exist.  He who holds the purse strings owns everything .  And plebes have no seat at the table or voice to object.  Does anyone honestly think MP will stop doing this because we have a valid point?

Being on a slippery slope doesn't necessarily mean that a disastrous outcome is 'inexorable, just that it is more likely--you might not fall and even a fall can be stopped with a self-arrest or in soft snow--but may also end up in the 'schrund or crashing into some rocks. Historically things become bad in small increments--people too often don't realize what is happening until it is too late---that is how authoritarianism (of both the right and left) has often occurred. Obviously the renaming of climbing routes is a very minor thing in the big (or even not so big) picture, but it is a manifestation of a very disturbing trend in the larger world. It is not the question of whether or not I (or anyone) agrees with the issues that those wanting to change the names are trying to address, it is the censorship and restrictions on free speech and individual expression ( and the willingness to change history) that are so disturbing to me, even in this small context. Once such censorship and limitations become accepted in these small contexts, then it makes it just that much easier (even if not inevitable) for it to expand elsewhere.

Sure Sean, you and your friends, or any group, can call a route anything you want among yourselves, but once one group starts changing names in guidebooks and databases (for whatever reasons) , then other groups or individuals will have the equal ability/right to do the same ---making said guidebooks/databases meaningless. 

Sean Kurnas wrote:

Because there is some language that I think is demeaning, insulting, or alienating, and I don't want to become a megaphone for that language by repeating it.

Do you think I should be forced to do so?

No one forcing you to repeat anything. if you want to boycott a climb don’t climb it and if you don’t like a FA’s attitude boycott their routes and bolts.

there are plenty of things I don’t like. As a vegan, does that mean I can force you not to wear leather shoes or eat meat in front of me at a crag? No because api realize the world doesn’t revolve around me or my personal beliefs.

Alan Rubin wrote:

I think this is a reasonable concern, but one that cuts both ways. If enough people exercise their individual expression and free speech to reach a consensus that you disagree with, then they're not limiting your speech any more than you were limiting theirs prior to the new consensus.  It just means that the name changed, and people might not respect it (or understand you) if you use another name.

I agree that it is concerning if using the 'wrong' name results in automatic deleted comments or bans. That's part of the reason why this is a "high friction slope" as another user said.  Maybe even an uphill battle.  It only looks like a slippery slope if you think that everyone on the 'other side' of this debate will push things to an extreme without nuance or objection.  I think the community is responsible enough to have nuanced discussions, despite the polarizing nature of the internet.

Sean Kurnas wrote:

Alan, your metaphor assumes that some gravitational force is pulling us towards an extreme position, and that our current position is actually stable and acceptable.  I don't necessarily share that conception of the status quo.  Sometimes, things that are hideously bad are considered to be totally acceptable by society at large -- people DO realize what is happening but actually don't find it objectionable.  

And those who do consider it objectionable, historically, have often been locked out of the conversation - so we had what appeared to be a consensus, but was actually just a consensus of the most vested, enfranchised people in society.  Maybe now we're moving towards a more representative consensus.

I think this is a reasonable concern, but one that cuts both ways. If enough people exercise their individual expression and free speech to reach a consensus that you disagree with, then they're not limiting your speech any more than you were limiting theirs prior to the new consensus.  It just means that the name changed, and people might not respect it (or understand you) if you use another name.

I agree that it is concerning if using the 'wrong' name results in automatic deleted comments or bans. That's part of the reason why this is a "high friction slope" as another user said.  Maybe even an uphill battle.  It only looks like a slippery slope if you think that everyone on the 'other side' of this debate will push things to an extreme without nuance or objection.  I think the community is responsible enough to have nuanced discussions, despite the polarizing nature of the internet.

Theoretically, what if the majority of people wanted to censor climbs put up by LGBT people as they are morally objected to Same sex relationships?

50 years ago, that probably could have been a issue... just because the majority thought it was in the best interest of the general public doesnt make it right.

That’s the slippery slope people are talking about.

Insert Name Wrote:

just because the majority thought it was in the best interest of the general public doesnt make it right.

I never said it did.

My point, again, is that you have to decide the merits on a case by case basis.  Insisting that names can't change, because they can't, doesn't solve this problem.

But, in terms of route names, but also in the 'greater world' the slide has already begun. Let's stick with our small world, already names have been changed or redacted that go beyond ones that are clearly demeaning. Case in point is Shockley's in the Gunks. There is nothing whatsoever demeaning or offensive in the name itself. It was named in accordance with a long established practice of naming climbs after those who made the first ascent or were otherwise associated with the history of the climb. It has been deemed offensive because years after the route was climbed and named, Shockley became notorious for his racist views. Since there is no connection between the climb and his ideas, that name should not be changed and those who made the change are only trying to 'clean up' history to make it conform to current beliefs--something I find to be very troubling.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Rudolph Fehrmann was the leading climber during the first heyday of climbing in Dresden at the start of the 20th Century, with numerous routes named after him. The same with major climbs he made in the Dolomites. He also was a notorious anti-Semite, who died in prison awaiting war crimes trial after World War 2. I am Jewish, I know this history, I have climbed some of his routes knowing this, but by doing so I had no feeling that I was in any way endorsing his appalling views or actions. I have no interest in changing any of these names and would oppose doing so.

In contrast Paul Pruess was one of Fehrmann's equally important climbing contemporaries. However for decades he almost disappeared from climbing history, with his name not mentioned in German language guides or history ( which were the only ones for those areas) for years. Why? He was born Jewish and even though he had converted before his death, this background was sufficient for the Nazis to try to erase his contributions to our sport.

This is the type of thing that worries me so much.