[jwi]

Tangential, when did "freedom of speech" stop meaning "the government will not censure speech ex-ante" and start meaning "no one has the right to think that I am a big fat idiot for saying stupid shit"?

[Dingdong]

Free speech absolutists are crazy to think you can say anything they want without any sort of repercussions. As a good friend of mine once said “tolerating intolerance is the one thing I won’t tolerate” - sure the state might not throw you in the gulag but it won’t stop everyone around you thinking you’re a monumental dingdong.

[Wellsy]

Oh ding DONG!!!!!

[El Mocho]

When I first got really keen on climbing, around the age of 8-10, I found the whole scene exciting and exotic. I was hanging out with mates of my dads, often a bit younger than him, who I saw as really cool. Lycra tights, long hair, smoking weed, riding motorbikes… Climbing felt way more edgy than the gymnastic club I went to on a wed evening. I loved it.

By the time I was in my late teens, early 20s I was now part of the scene living in the cool house in Leeds. We still felt a little edgy and alternative. As a cis, white, middle class male I fitted into what was still at that time pretty cis, white and middle class. There were climbers, sometimes famous, who had more extreme views on stuff. Some simply about the ethics of climbing, some making more general or political points. I bought One for the Crow around this time (Redheads book). I didn’t always (or even very often at all) agree with the views the more extreme people had but again as a cis, white male and now fairly competent climber I felt very secure in the scene. The views didn’t put me off or make me feel awkward. If I did have people take the piss out of me it didn’t upset me, in general I also found it funny. Looking back at some of our behaviour from that time it must have felt intimidating to others. Turning up at a crag en masse, soloing loads of routes, in jokes between us all… we were part of the in crowd and if you were not it could have been off putting. At times we obviously did upset other climbers – the people we soloed past on Skye voiced how upset they were at the time, we pretty much intimidated someone out of headpointing a route at Ilkley as we didn’t believe in that style of climbing… It was all fun though, it was all ‘cool’.

In the 20+ years since then climbing has become much more welcoming and inclusive but it has also lost a bit of the edge. There are fewer characters than there used to be and climbing itself has been sanitised. Obviously you can still find weird characters and have as much of an adventure as you want if you go looking but it’s pretty hard to avoid how mainstream it all is now. As standards have advanced the top climbers are now, in general, less edgy and exciting. It’s pretty hard to try and compete (on the crag or the wall) against someone with the talent and dedication of Ondra if you are out picking mushrooms, dancing to techno all night and pissing about.

There is lots I miss about those earlier times and for some people, who were maybe some of the more edgy or outliers from those times, there will be even more they miss. They have gone from feeling like climbing was their tribe to now feeling like the outsider, the odd one out.

As much as there is lots I miss there is also loads which is much better, especially for the groups who were more marginalised in climbing in the past. Although these improvements don’t particularly effect me as a cis white male I can still see and appreciate them. From speaking to a close family member (not about Dan’s stuff specifically, just in general) who is part of the community that Dan is attacking I am very aware how hurtful, off putting and nasty his comments are. When Dan takes the piss out of Lattice he is punching up, and Tom R as the owner? figurehead? of Lattice, should be in a position to take a little bit of piss taking. When Dan takes the piss out of trans folk etc he is punching down. He is attacking a group who are already marginalised within the wider society and is making them feel less part of the climbing world.

What I also don’t get is he is essentially reinforcing what he dislikes about the current scene, trying to stifle the variety and edginess that was part of what makes and made climbing great. Does he want everyone to be a stale, middle aged white man like him?

If Dan wants to go publish this stuff then sure he can do, if people want to find it, go looking for it... I hope not many people do. It did feel that for the owner of this site to be, seemingly to me and other folk, actively promoting his stuff then that is disgusting. There are nuggets of interest in amongst pages of racism, transphobia, anti vax and nastiness. If Simon had said “Dan want’s me to let you all know…” that would have made it feel less like UKB was promoting something to just, as Simon has said, letting folk know about it.

I still have Redheads book on my shelves. A product of it’s time maybe. Dans ‘book’ would not sit along side it (and for clarity One for the Crow doesn’t represent my feelings on climbing, women etc).

Sorry this is a bit of a rant, I guess it was partly a form of me working out my own feelings on the climbing scene, the stuff which I miss about the past.

[Droyd]

Some brilliant spoonerisms in there, to the extent that I can't quite figure out whether they're on purpose - things like the BMC being in it to "crush descent" these days is almost too good.

I had a read through some pages of this this morning and once you get past the climate-change denial, anti-vax rhetoric, and bigoted little asides about pronouns and gender there's a distaste for modern climbing that I really quite like, an anger about the number-obsessed, training-for-the-sake-of-training and commercialisation bits of today's climbing culture that I can get behind - even if I don't blame cultural marxism and pegging for the shift.

I do wonder about the hyper-focus on anal-widening devices and bumholes. Reminds me of my middle-school days.

Art and culture is a broad church etc etc but if one has to squint past the bigotry aimed at LGBT+ people (the focus on anal widening devices and bumholes being straight out of the far right playbook, depicting modern society as emasculated and modern men as "soy boys") in order to find something mildly amusing about training for climbing that seems... An interesting way by which the author might make their point.

My (very poorly articulated) point yesterday morning was that I find it fascinating that someone can have arrived at a similar point of view to me as regards the state of climbing in 2023 (ego- and number-driven) but be 'blaming' such completely different things for that state of affairs - greed and commercialisation in my case, whatever the fuck Dan's on about in his (bumholes and vaccines and men no longer being men?).

On the topic of Dan's book being in any way 'advertised' on here - I think that it's a good thing insofar as it brings it into the light and results in thorough condemnation of the views being expressed, as compared to it just being circulated in whatever echo chambers exist where alt-right/fringe beliefs and climbing culture intersect (which is maybe just Dan's Instagram page). To my mind it's good that such views are challenged publicly on the basis that they're always going to exist, and at least this way Dan and Ducko and anyone reading this thread but not commenting can see that their views are considered to be abhorrent by a majority of their peers. To an extent that marginalises the people expressing the bigotry and so pushes them further down the rabbithole (evidenced nicely by Ducko's new profile picture), but it sends a broader message that the public expression of such thinking is considered by the majority to be unacceptable. I'm quite heartened to see such strident criticism given if you go back a ways on threads on here you find some pretty shocking stuff.

Obviously that all skirts the issue of tacit endorsement, but I guess my point is that talking about and criticising this stuff means being aware of its existence in the first place, rather than blissfully ignorant, which is at least an unintentional positive.

[jwi]

It’s pretty hard to try and compete (on the crag or the wall) against someone with the talent and dedication of Ondra if you are out picking mushrooms, dancing to techno all night and pissing about.

or indeed with prepubescent teamkids if you let your standards slip below 8c...

And another thing, there was a time I was willing to partner up with anyone that could hold a rope under a bit of supervision. Now there are just too many climbers around and I will simply not stand for having a belayer stoned out of their mind e.g.

[northern yob]

Great post Ben!!

When ducko first stuck up a review of dans latest fanzine?? I gave him a wad point….

I’d got a copy off Dan and perhaps rather naively flicked through it without actually taking it in, I haven’t ever subscribed to any of his weird views, but I’ve always liked counterculture in general and his ways of forcing sometimes interesting discussions have often amused me.

 Whilst  I’m very much against cancel culture and censorship, upon closer inspection I’m inclined to agree that maybe it shouldn’t be being promoted on here. And whilst I would hope that most people on here can see it for what it really is (absolute bollocks with a small sprinkling of anti establishment amusement, and some let’s say interesting imagery) there are actually some pretty dark undercurrents if you sit down and really think about it.

Your post highlights a really interesting debate about scenes and about free speech, it’s also made me think quite introspectively about how other people might see things rather than just how I do, good on you for calling it out.

It is actually pedalling some pretty abhorrent views. Should shit like it be censored…….??

[Dingdong]

It is actually pedalling some pretty abhorrent views. Should shit like it be censored…….??

Should nazi propaganda be censored? If you believe so, this fanzine is not straying too far from those views.

[northern yob]

I don’t believe anything should be censored pretty much for the reasons Droyd highlighted. Interesting debate though….

[spidermonkey09]

Kind of off topic, but I find the fetishisation of 'scenes' and 'characters' in (British?) climbing really weird. Probably because I came into it around 2010 rather than 1980. For example, Redhead etc is clearly a mental misogynist and always was, I find it weird people looked past this at the time because he was a 'character.' Andy Kirkpatrick another good example.

Its perfectly possible to be a 'character' without being an arsehole!

[duncan]

.... as compared to it just being circulated in whatever echo chambers exist where alt-right/fringe beliefs and climbing culture intersect (which is maybe just Dan's Instagram page).

[edit]As spider monkey has just said Andy K would be the most obvious comparison, though it is some time since I've looked at what he is up to.

There are plenty of vocal anti-vaxxers in my generation of climbers. The path from wanting to see a different kind of society, to supporting a green outlook, to alternative medicine, to embracing anti-vax beliefs, has been well-trodden for decades. What seems more common now is the next step to The New World Order etc. (Although perhaps not so new, the far-right of the 1920s and 30s had communality with the ecological movement)

A recent example in Totnes.
(Mainsteam media so obviously can be ignored)

Ben, thanks for articulating what I had wanted to say better than I could have.

[jwi]

n well-trodden for decades. What seems more common now is the next step to The New World Order etc. (Although perhaps not so new, the far-right of the 1920s and 30s had communality with the ecological movement)

Most of the board of the Swedish Alpine club were also active in the Nazi movement from the 30s to 1945. After the war the same people were of course only conservatives.

In the early 70s the rock-climbers organized themselves and created an independent Climbing Federation (that soon came to represent Sweden in UIAA, but the old Alpine club is still around)

[Oldmanmatt]

.... as compared to it just being circulated in whatever echo chambers exist where alt-right/fringe beliefs and climbing culture intersect (which is maybe just Dan's Instagram page).

[edit]As spider monkey has just said Andy K would be the most obvious comparison, though it is some time since I've looked at what he is up to.

There are plenty of vocal anti-vaxxers in my generation of climbers. The path from wanting to see a different kind of society, to supporting a green outlook, to alternative medicine, to embracing anti-vax beliefs, has been well-trodden for decades. What seems more common now is the next step to The New World Order etc. (Although perhaps not so new, the far-right of the 1920s and 30s had communality with the ecological movement)

A recent example in Totnes.
(Mainsteam media so obviously can be ignored)

Ben, thanks for articulating what I had wanted to say better than I could have.

Ah, yes, Totnes.

Always spoken about as a “Very Weird Place, full of Very Weird People” in Torquay. Given that Torquay is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, home to (seemingly) more than half the Spicehead population of the UK and proudly up in the top four UK destinations for violent crime, it’s quite remarkable that they manage to look down on Totnessians.

I didn’t really believe the hype, until we took on a large group of “Home schooled” kids from Totnes and I had to endure a long treatise on “Gravity is only a theory” and “It is Gia/Mother earth, pulling us to her bosom” that makes us fall and “Good people” won’t get hurt falling. Great mother, I’m sure; just hoping her kids don’t have to endure “Alternative Skydiving” or something.

[spidermonkey09]

I don’t believe anything should be censored pretty much for the reasons Droyd highlighted. Interesting debate though….

This is a nice idea but you obviously have to censor things. Thats why there are laws against hate speech. Freedom of expression ceases at the point where it discriminates or incites hostility and violence.

I'm not passing a judgement on where Dan's zine sits in relation to that but censorship exists for a reason.

[northern yob]

I don’t believe anything should be censored pretty much for the reasons Droyd highlighted. Interesting debate though….

This is a nice idea but you obviously have to censor things. Thats why there are laws against hate speech. Freedom of expression ceases at the point where it discriminates or incites hostility and violence.

I'm not passing a judgement on where Dan's zine sits in relation to that but censorship exists for a reason.

I’m well aware of the reasons both for and against censorship, I disagree. Censorship has been used and abused as long as we’ve been walking on two feet. I’d rather be in a world where I can make my own mind up. I can also see the other side…. Hence the interesting debate comment.

[spidermonkey09]

Thats interesting. Its obviously quite common to debate where the line on free speech/censorship should be drawn but its quite unusual to argue that there should be absolutely no restrictions on speech, even when people are clearly being harmed! To be clear, are you arguing that hate speech laws shouldn't exist? That people should be free to write and distribute racist/misogynist tracts, to shout it in the streets, to incite violence, on the basis that people should be allowed to make up their own minds?

[northern yob]

When put like that I’m not really sure…. I’m more arguing about governments or other institutions telling people what they can and cannot say. This power has been abused and used by ruling elites and establishments for ever to get away with terrible things.

From a straight moral point of view I’m definitely against any censorship!! From a practical point of view it’s extremely nuanced and complex. A bit like with fixed gear…. We are veering wildly off topic.

[stone]

The role of this radio station in the Rwanda genocide makes me very skeptical of arguments for unbridled free speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines

[spidermonkey09]

When put like that I’m not really sure…. I’m more arguing about governments or other institutions telling people what they can and cannot say. This power has been abused and used by ruling elites and establishments for ever to get away with terrible things.

From a straight moral point of view I’m definitely against any censorship!! From a practical point of view it’s extremely nuanced and complex. A bit like with fixed gear…. We are veering wildly off topic.

But thats kind of what I mean. Its pointless holding the view 'government can't tell me what to say or do' because that is the role of government and the rule of law. We all agree that rape/murder is wrong and that there should be laws against it. Thats a form of government censorship, it limits our freedom, limits the scope of our actions. The same goes for hate speech. Quite clearly it should not be legal for me to racially abuse someone walking past me in the street. No one disagrees with this in reality, if they do they're doing a bit.

What we're actually discussing is where the line should be drawn on free speech, which is indeed an interesting debate. But we aren't discussing is whether censorship should exist at all, because its a utopian, philosophical position rather than one based in observable fact.

[stone]

On a totally trivial level, whilst I totally agree that unlike Dan's other targets, Lattice aren't an oppressed minority or whatever I also don't understand the wish to topple them.

By all accounts Lattice are liked by their customers and really liked by their employees. If more of capitalism consisted of stuff like Lattice, I'd imagine the World would be a much better place.

I suppose denouncing  Lattice comes across to me a bit like denouncing say David Attenborough would. I'm left thinking, what? why? what's your problem?

[Paul B]

Do you think it's 'good for climbing' Stone? 

[Johnny Brown]

From a straight moral point of view I’m definitely against any censorship!! From a practical point of view it’s extremely nuanced and complex. A bit like with fixed gear…. We are veering wildly off topic.

I don't think we are, quite the opposite. This is the nub of the issue. The rise in both conspiracy thinking and fascism seem to correlate pretty clearly with the rise of ready censor-free material on the web.

Not sure there is much comparison with ...and one for the crow. I haven't looked at it for a while but it obviously when being outrageous was a lot easier, coming from a time when it was difficult to read anything that hadn't first passed an editor with some skin in the game. I will have another look but my memory of the misogyny seemed to be more laddish wanker trying to make a clever point than poisonous hatred. And some of the climbing writing is exceptional, e.g. the Margins of the Mind piece.

I find the pieces where Dan sets classic philosophical arguments in a climbing context pretty good. I'd like to seem more of that sort of intellectual approach to climbing culture, but it's a shame he choose to mire them in often unpleasant conspiracist bollocks rather build them into something coherent. But perhaps that's what he thinks he's doing.

As an aside, there seems to be some flat earthism in the latest, which I find perversely fascinating. I can understand how you can arrive at the wrong answer when researching vaccines or 9/11, but it is so easy to verify the curve of the earth with only your eyes and intellect, that failing to do so while simultaneously railing against MSM must surely serve as some opportunity to wake the fuck up from your youtube dreamworld?

If more of capitalism consisted of stuff like Lattice, I'd imagine the World would be a much better place.

Possibly. I think the problem/ question being addressed here is more 'does climbing need more capitalism?'

For me, no. It has always been an escape from it.

[Will Hunt]

Please could we be directed to the flat-earthism? I'd like to rubberneck but can't be bothered reading the whole thing in detail.

[colin8ll]

I’d rather be in a world where I can make my own mind up

I always find it interesting when people focus on the impact information might have on their thoughts and beliefs during censorship discussions. There's often an attitude of "I'm smart enough to make up my own mind so WE don't need censorship".

I'm more concerned about how information might impact my neighbours thoughts and beliefs, especially if the information is telling them that I, or the people I care about, are some kind of threat due to our ethnicity, sexuality etc.

[Rocksteady]

When put like that I’m not really sure…. I’m more arguing about governments or other institutions telling people what they can and cannot say. This power has been abused and used by ruling elites and establishments for ever to get away with terrible things.

From a straight moral point of view I’m definitely against any censorship!! From a practical point of view it’s extremely nuanced and complex. A bit like with fixed gear…. We are veering wildly off topic.

The same goes for hate speech. Quite clearly it should not be legal for me to racially abuse someone walking past me in the street. No one disagrees with this in reality, if they do they're doing a bit.

What we're actually discussing is where the line should be drawn on free speech, which is indeed an interesting debate. But we aren't discussing is whether censorship should exist at all, because its a utopian, philosophical position rather than one based in observable fact.

Personally I think there's a line between insulting someone vs threatening someone with violence. I pretty much think anyone should be able to call anyone else whatever they want. If it's out of line with what is acceptable in society then that is censured by society. You deal with it on an interpersonal level. Yes people might be offended but you have to balance that with free speech. I feel there is a bit of a trend online where people 'take' offence regardless of what another person actually said / the context. That's where I support free speech - you shouldn't have the recourse of law just for saying something that could be offensive, even if it's racist or sexist or whatever. I totally disagree with a person's racist or sexist point of view, but I think they should be allowed to hold that view and express it.

IMHO where the law should step in is around violence. If you threaten or incite violence based on someone's race or sex or gender (or in fact, on whatever lines) then that for me is where the line is crossed and there should be censorship and legal repercussion.

So if I went into a climbing gym and started berating climbers, "all climbers are big forearmed ****s", then there is no legal penalty or censorship but I might suffer the consequences of being disagreed with by lots of strong and fit climbers and the owners might ban me from the premises.

If I went around the streets or posted online that "all climbers are big forearmed ****s so they should be exterminated, let's go down to the gym and x,y,z acts of violence" - that's hate speech, censorable, and criminal consequences should ensure.

As a separate but related issue I think we need better laws/enforcement around publishing and disseminating demonstrably false (or faked) information and presenting it as truth, because the current regime seems pathetically far behind the capabilities of bad actors on this front.

Edit: Added "speechmarks" to show that I am illustrating a point not actually positing an opinion or course of action.