What's up with Rumney Hinterlands!?

Half the names have been changed to "Redacted." Is this someone's protest? Redacted names include such offensive gems as "Giant Man," "Cold Feet," "Hinterland's Highway" etc. It doesn't appear that these names have been redacted by MP. Apparently the names have actually been changed in the system by a user, though not all the routes have the same OP.

It's Mark Sprague making a statement. He's upset that a handful of route names have been redacted on MP. 

Seems childish. Hopefully he can share why he thinks so. Most redacted names I have seen makes sense. The goal after all is for us to get along. 

• While I don't agree with Mark's ( or whomever it is) actions, when those original names were changed by MP it very much was a sign that we are not able to "all get along ". Once censorship becomes acceptable we are all in trouble. With maybe very rare exceptions the original names should be left as is.

Mp didn't change the names. Just hid it and you can see the name with a simple click. If a name makes a group of people uncomfortable I think a discussion of the name usage makes sense.

We have far stricter censorship all over e.g license plates etc. I guess some will protest and drive around with "redacted" plates? :) 

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.

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?

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.

I disagree that 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy. Please explain.I can attest living in the Northeast that even a light glaze of ice on even a slight slope is more slippery than it is on level ground.

I can accept that names that are "CLEARLY ...hateful" could/should be changed, but few of the names that are being changed fit that criteria. "Offensive" is much more subjective, and like "uncomfortable" is very much 'in the eyes of the beholder '.

I believe it may be in response to this (from Nick Wilder):

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/119453844/update-on-route-names-82720

Alan Rubin wrote:

I disagree that 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy. Please explain.

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.

Ron Birk wrote:

Seems childish. Hopefully he can share why he thinks so. Most redacted names I have seen makes sense. The goal after all is for us to get along. 

I couldn't agree more. While I agree some of the redactions have been a bit over the top, if you read Nick's post, the current redactions are temporary until they can get a group together. In times of change the process is never perfect, however, this effort is intended to make our community more inclusive and welcoming and that is worth the effort. It is also worth being cautious and once the group is established the redactions that are not necessary can be worked out. All his actions with the route names in the Hinterlands does is impact the community negatively while rallying against something, that while imperfect, is overall a good thing.

Alan Rubin wrote:

Still censorship. It is part of a disturbing trend across the country. 

Al, Nick summarized it well in his post explaining the name changes but I'll repeat it here: removing hateful and offensive names is necessary to create a more inclusive climbing community. The status quo is one where we cannot all "get along" because people with power (the FAs in this silly little microcosm) feel free to put offensive and hateful names out into the climbing community with no repercussions. Among other things, this is one reason we end up with a predominantly white, male community. If you're fine with a lack of diversity in climbing, then there's not much to discuss here. If you'd like to see a more diverse community, then try to step back and listen to the people who are being discriminated against when they tell you what parts of our community need change. Here's one article to start.

Nobody claims that this process will be perfect, there's clearly a lot left to interpretation and opinion here. But if you agree with the intention of the process then you have to be ok with the errors on the way as it gets dialed in. 

Schuyler Baer wrote:

 There is no slippery slope here.

I like to think of it as a rough slope. 

As we collectively take each step there is a debate about whether we are going up or down the slope. Some people think we are on our way up other the top, others fear we are about to fall down the mountain. Some worry the slope is slippery or about to become slippery. In my mind it is rough, we are on secure yet sloped ground. In reality, social change moves very slowly with debate and reaction at each step, change can take decades or more. Any individual may not be happy with the direction of travel, and they can work to bend the path to their preferred direction. 

The fear of falling down a slope to a pit of despair is histrionics. 

It also is rude to a person who named a route to assume the worst about their supposed intention. Perhaps too much is being read into it, and people are being mislabeled and are thusly upset. 

As mentioned before, this is a first step while trying to figure out a better consensus. Some names are now hidden that maybe shouldn't. The names are still there though, just not visible by default. Nothing is removed. . 

I understand some route names have play with words and/or their intentions harmless. But if a group of people see the name as uncomfortable, does it matter the original intention? Take the route  "Final Solution"..Maybe the intention was related to solving Rubiks cube. But for many it means something vastly different. or  "Knights in White Satin" which is one of the routes Mark has commented on recently. I understand it's a word play on the song "Nights in White Satin", but for many the name is not a nice reminder.

Ron Birk wrote:

As mentioned before, this is a first step while trying to figure out a better consensus. Some names are now hidden that maybe shouldn't. The names are still there though, just not visible by default. Nothing is removed. . 

I understand some route names have play with words and/or their intentions harmless. But if a group of people see the name as uncomfortable, does it matter the original intention? Take the route  "Final Solution"..Maybe the intention was related to solving Rubiks cube. But for many it means something vastly different. or  "Knights in White Satin" which is one of the routes Mark has commented on recently. I understand it's a word play on the song "Nights in White Satin", but for many the name is not a nice reminder.

Just because you find a reason to be offended by your interpretation of words doesn’t mean you should get to censor them.

Can a Mormon finding offense in a climb named “brass monkey” mean we should censor any name referring to drugs,alcohol or sex outside of marriage? Where is the line drawn?

God.
This whole redacted shit show is hilarious!

Maybe people will stop using Mountain Project and go get guide books?

"Redac...redaccc....redacced?"

The real issue here is that the rack that you need for Redacted is totally different than the rack that you need for Redacted. If you bring the Redacted rack to climb Redacted, YGD.

Does "Standard Rumney Rack" apply?

Demetri V wrote:

The real issue here is that the rack that you need for Redacted is totally different than the rack that you need for Redacted. If you bring the Redacted rack to climb Redacted, YGD.

Does "Standard Rumney Rack" apply?

 standard Rumney Rack

1 stickclip

12 draws

1 French Canadian belayer

2 hammocks

Insert name wrote:

Where is the line drawn?

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.

Tim Stich wrote:

God.
This whole redacted shit show is hilarious!

Maybe people will stop using Mountain Project and go get guide books?

don't forget that thread about the Gunks ... the App and guidbook are doing just the same!