Redacted Squad - offensive route names on MP

Todd Berlier wrote:

What the fuck are you talking about? A concept of a plan is what an idiot says that doesn't have a plan and pulls something out of their dumbass to act like they've thought about. 

It's what a 14 year old says when their teacher asks them about their plan for the class project that's due the next day.

It's what you tell your boss when you haven't done shit on a work assignment.

I mean, no one (with half a brain) buys it when you say MP has a concept of a plan. If MP has even an inkling of a concept of a plan it would have been carried out already.

It’s a Kamalaism. 

Mr Rogers wrote:

yes it is, and I gave you the context which provides insight. Seems like you glossed over all that and went with your knee jerk reaction to words.

Did you update the route description with the context that you say was the origin of the route name? Or are you thinking every MP user follows your posts.

Snark aside. Many of us can make up plausibly benign contexts. It is an important part of getting along with arbitrary others where the actual context isn’t worth getting into. Still, I’m not buying that it is intrinsically necessary for all to learn to do that in this case.

I know many individuals for whom happening upon that route name would cause them to involuntarily barf their ham sandwich before they had a chance to read the context. Kinda makes me gag a little too. 

Save potentially jarring phrases for circumstances with forewarning but without exposure, so someone can first make a choice to enter - like a sign warning that a nudist beach is up ahead (redact) rather than having a nude dude standing there saying “This is what you get if you keep going.”

No big culture-war deal some are want to fabricate. Surprised this needs to be said.

Now, whether to change a route name is a higher bar for me. Still, yeah, I’d vote to outright change this one on MP after giving the FA-ist a chance.

Edit to add: I personally think the vast majority of the still-redacted NM route names are fine. Was there something in MP’s plan about going back to the flaggers and asking for justification before dismissing the flags? Is anyone doing that besides just asking FA-it’s to change the name?

grug g wrote: . Years ago a diverse committee was created to correct offensive route names on MP. 

Oh, I love diversity.... as long as everyone thinks just like me.

The angry dudes on this thread are still “offended” even “triggered” that since 2010 derogatory gay slang words are no longer socially acceptable. They really want to hug each other after a sick send but can only bring them selves to a fist bump. They wish their daddies were more proud of them.

If only this energy was actually put towards something positive, maybe like civil rights or social justice… 

Cole Lawrence wrote:

The angry dudes on this thread are still “offended” even “triggered” that since 2010 derogatory gay slang words are no longer socially acceptable. They really want to hug each other after a sick send but can only bring them selves to a fist bump. They wish their daddies were more proud of them.

Of only this energy was actually put towards something positive, maybe like civil rights or social justice… 

Doesn't freedom of speech also go hand in hand with what you mentioned?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions... Some rt names are really bad and never should have happened 

 The majority of the redacted names however are really the result of people actively looking to be offended by something. 

Dwarf Tossing is still redacted https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106911856 and is a LOTR reference and reference to the massive 7ft dyno crux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfrcNmyn8kM.

At the end of the day we are powerless to our MtnProject overlords

Redacted Redactberg wrote:

Yep. “Diverse Committee” my ass. It’s quite obviously a bunch of virtue signaling, uncultured, goyim karens circlejerking each other about how they are such “compassionate allies.”

Imagine having the chutzpah to tell someone who actually had relatives who died in Babi Yar that they know better whether the word Nazi is being used in a hateful vs. comedically pejorative way.

You're still not understanding that some committee did not go through the entire route database manually and redacted individual routes. The big hammer results suggest an automated approach.

Hot take- real world possible to find offensive route names fun and distasteful at the same time. As well as emphasize with those offended and find the redaction of many route names silly. Carry on 

Redacted Redactberg wrote:

Yep. “Diverse Committee” my ass. It’s quite obviously a bunch of virtue signaling, uncultured, goyim karens circlejerking each other about how they are such “compassionate allies.”

Imagine having the chutzpah to tell someone who actually had relatives who died in Babi Yar that they know better whether the word Nazi is being used in a hateful vs. comedically pejorative way.

Agreed.

And no Todd, it's definitely not a "violation " , it's more of a movement to control free speech that is disturbing . It's happening all over on both sides of the political spectrum and it definitely does not follow what I believe to be American tradition. 

I don't like KKK members at all. Do I want them eradicated?  No

There are lots of actions people take that I don't appreciate . Do I want to stop them or lock them up? No, I'm a firm believer in karma. I actually want my kids to see the other side, if they don't they become clueless "karens".

Namaste mofos

I don’t suppose it’s the right time to post a social IQ test? :)

I don’t really want to get involved in this conversation, largely because I don’t think you can reason someone out of a belief they didn’t reason themselves into, but also because the loudest people about this historically on this site have been the most insufferable. However, I think it’s important to make it clear that Todd and others on the side agreeing with changing offensive route names are not this voiceless minority they appear to be in this thread.

To re-purpose a quote from Shane Gillis “[Route Developers are] edgy and shocking, which is a really cool thing for a 50 year old man to be.” Which is a hilarious indictment coming from someone who immediately uses “gay” in a derogatory way in the next breath. Using shock humor over the age of 16 isn’t fun, it’s weird.

In general, my rule of thumb has been to avoid naming routes that would make my grandma blush. In general, I don’t believe in renaming crass/crude routes just because they’re inappropriate. However, truly offensive names - ones that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc - have no place in the sport. There’s a difference between seeing a name that’s inappropriate/silly (though nobody will beat “Harry Butthole Pussy Potter”), and one that legitimately makes you feel like you don’t belong.

You can “context matters” all you want but that won’t stop you from getting your ass kicked when you say that “inside joke” you and your friends have a little too loud at the bar, and it doesn’t absolve you in this situation either. The fact of the matter is that routes belong to the community even before you clean the route/add the bolts to it, and maintaining the dumbass names we give to them is generally a formality. The community decides if the name gets changed. You just get to decide if you look like a jackass being the only holdout using an already not-clever, offensive original name or using the name that a steadily increasing amount of people refer to it as.

As for when the redacted names will actually be replaced - I’m also in favor of just going ahead and renaming routes. Ask the FA, if they don’t respond, ask the guidebook author, if they don’t respond/don’t exist, ask the LCOs, if they don’t exist, leave a comment asking for suggestions and see what responses you get. Set a timeline and communicate it publicly. Don’t leave it forever, because routes need a name and it’s just gonna be referred to by its offensive name until it gets a new one.

Most of this thread is people quoting one or another “political personality,” and not even having the good graces to attribute where “their” opinion comes from.

But the original post and the one with the link to the plan are good. Why is this taking so long to get done? OnX talk about 2 months listed as  “Redacted” before a placeholder name gets put up.

 My guess would be that onX weren’t able to convince a “diverse committee” to read slurs all day for no money and clean up a database folks paid a $1M+ for. Especially when that committee doesn’t even have the final say. But maybe there was another snag?

Would ChatGPT be less good than a committee of real people? I bet it would vote about the way a large enough committee would. It’s certainly more automatable.

M M wrote:

I don't like KKK members at all. Do I want them eradicated?  No

Sep M wrote:

Would ChatGPT be less good than a committee of real people? I bet it would vote about the way a large enough committee would. It’s certainly more automatable.

LLMs are wildly biased.  It would with a bit of effort be better than the algo REI implemented but as someone who works in "AI safety" in its current form it could be a good solution if a solid amount of resources are put towards a best effort implementation of it.  OnX is not going to do that because its not cheap and there isnt really even a guarantee it would work that well

Tal. I have zero problem erasing the actual stupid truly offensive names for the same reason that have no problem kicking the white hoods in the crotch. There is however apparently a bunch of names that don't fit that category and still got the chop. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Tal. I have zero problem erasing the actual stupid truly offensive names for the same reason that have no problem kicking the white hoods in the crotch. There is however apparently a bunch of names that don't fit that category and still got the chop. 

They are studiously refusing to admit a lot of kosher route names got chopped for a tactical reason. Namely, that if a person got triggered by a route name that they were too grossly uncultured to understand, they would be forced to conclude that “just because you’re offended, it doesn’t mean you are right!” This would jepoardize the whole project, because “getting offended” can no longer reliably be the litmus. This would mean that someone would have to come up with a no nonsense definition for “hate speech,” which we all know is a fool’s errand and simply devolves into a definition in the territory of simply “speech that I hate.”

Perhaps an explanation for some of the generally understood-to-be-silly redactions:  That 'governing' group - not just MP owners - did create a list of words that were outright unacceptable no matter what else accompanied them. For example, I recall that "nazi" was included.  So at least some of the redacted route names could be from people trying to be helpful to the 'governing' group.

The above is partly why I asked earlier if those working to change route names have asked flaggers for justification.  Personally, at this point, I'd heavily discount flag justifications simply referring to the 'governing' group's list of forbidden words.