[stone]

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.

That's fine. I also don't have coaching myself. It's just that I struggle to think of a more harmless way for other people to spend their money if that's what they chose to do. As a byproduct they are also supporting a bunch of charming, dedicated, talented climbers (ie the Lattice staff) to do lots of climbing -and that seem great to me. I guess Lattice might also be advancing knowledge about climbing training. I don't think of improvements in climbing ability as being humanity's most crucial endeavour or anything, but it's sort of cool if it happens.

[Dingdong]

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.

So a racist influencer who might espouse neo-nazi views should be allowed to upload weekly videos to their channel for their fan base, at what point does it become “inciting violene”? Can someone saying “Muslims don’t belong in our country” be considered inciting violence? What about someone who says “send all the pakis back”? “They should be happy going to Rwanda”?

As someone who has suffered from racism a lot growing up it always makes me laugh when some white middle class bloke is happy to let people spout nonsense under the guise of free speech. I still remember when a couple of legends came up to me at a bus stop once, asked me if I had a bomb in my bag and then proceeded to kick my head in just cause I’m darker than they are. I wonder where their journey of self discovery began, probably just reading some of Dan’s pamphlets.

I bet y’all wouldn’t be such free speech absolutists if you actually suffered from racism, misogynism, transphobia, homophobia rather than living in your safe little bubbles 

[Oldmanmatt]

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.

Surely though, the direct threat of violence is not required, nor even the modus operandi of the truly bad actors out there. Carefully avoiding such threats seems their bag.
It’s the dehumanising of their target group and the dog whistle to those less able to restrain themselves.
The prick that murdered the little Muslim boy in Illinois, the teacher killed in Arras. Victims of hatred stirred up by those too clever to ever publicly call for the violence.
Years of dehumanising tripe pumped into impressionable minds.
Have you ever heard about how hard it was/is to get soldiers to kill, even on the battlefield? Marshall’s research found that only 15-20% of infantry fired their weapons, knowingly, at obvious targets. (WW2).
https://academic.oup.com/book/12748/chapter-abstract/162864298?redirectedFrom=fulltext#

Yet, right now, we are seeing such acts committed by people with no direct link to the current conflict. Those people did not arise in a vacuum. 

The line should be a lot further to the safe side than direct threats.

[edshakey]

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.

There's definitely something missing here - violence isn't the only measure of hurting people, speech alone can cause plenty of damage. Maybe people should be legally allowed to say "all climbers are big forearmed ****s", but that's very different from going to a climbing wall, choosing someone and then saying racial slurs at them. You're not inciting violence, but you're certainly could cause a pretty traumatic afternoon for someone, all in the name of "free speech".

I think Dingdong hit the nail on the head

I bet y’all wouldn’t be such free speech absolutists if you actually suffered from racism, misogynism, transphobia, homophobia rather than living in your safe little bubbles 

I'm fortunate enough to not have received this kind of abuse, but I like to think I'm empathetic enough to see the problems and think "ok, how can we help these people", rather than "sorry that sucks but I want to continue being able to say offensive things to minorities without legal consequence".

[remus]

Out of interest Simon, why are you promoting this?

Just going back to Bradders early Q, and the discussion about whether stuff like this should be part of UKB: this whole conversation has been really interesting and wouldn't have happened had shark taken the easy decision to not post about Dan's zine. If things like this are always censored I think there is a risk that the only discussion ends up being in contexts where there are no moderate voices (e.g. 4chan, white power forums, anti vax movement etc), and the rhetoric becomes insular and self sustaining (and dissent quickly gets labelled as "you don't know what I know", "you're brainwashed by the mainstream media" and so on).

It feels a bit like putting all the naughty kids in school in to one class: maybe it's beneficial for the other kids in the short term, but you risk making a big problem for yourself down the line with the naughty kids who are the next generation of scrotes.

[andy popp]

It's really irking me that Dan gets to sit back and ride this one out. He can't be civil enough to maintain an account here, gets Shark to post about his crap, and conveniently stays silent. If he wants to publish his hateful views he should stand up and own and defend them. But he has a convenient get out not to do that.

Also, great post earlier from Ben.

[Rocksteady]

I very much empathise with people who've had horrible experiences. I have also been abused for how I look and have actually also been attacked at a bus stop for this reason. Life in the 1990s as a teenager seemed to have quite a few experiences like this actually.

I just can't see where you draw the line on free speech without some kind of threat of violence. Under violence I guess I'd include all the stuff about making someone leave the country etc because I don't see how you do that without violence.

But who gets to define what's offensive? A 'reasonable person' test? Do you trust lawmakers to get this right - especially with the shower in Parliament at present? Is disagreeing with a majority view offensive? Super hard to get right.

Do you censor old books that weren't offensive at the time they were written but are now (probably quite a bit in religious texts falls under this)? Do you prevent horrible incidents from history from being taught because they go against modern sensibilities? How do you learn from history if you do this?

I don't think you can realistically stop people saying or thinking horrible things with the law. It's too open to abuse as it's a fine line between that and stopping people saying other things because they offend eg. the government.

[andy popp]

I bet y’all wouldn’t be such free speech absolutists if you actually suffered from racism, misogynism, transphobia, homophobia rather than living in your safe little bubbles 

I think the only person who's advanced a really absolutist position is Northern Yob, and even then they rowed back in later posts. Just how I read things.

[stone]

I think the anti-hate-speech discussion is the important discussion but diverting back to the capitalism in climbing thread....

....I think climbing is the right sort of place for capitalism. I see all sorts of problems with much of capitalism's involvement in eg health care. But with people paying for climbing coaching, the customers understand what they are paying for and it doesn't really matter if they don't have the money and so can't get coaching, so it all seems fine to me. I'm also wary in general of arguments against professionalisation. In other elite sports, that has been used as a way to exclude people (eg athletics, Rugby Union?). Coaching seems a way that elite-ish climbers can earn a living from climbing.

[stone]

I'm feeling so conflicted about Remus's idea that it's a good to discuss hate speech etc.

I really wonder whether instead we should just prioritise thorough suppression of hate speech and so allow everyone to live their lives without being exposed to anything unjustly targeting them. For people targeted, I'm guessing it isn't just a casually interesting discussion topic.

I know of someone who abandoned a successful substack (on a benign non-controversial topic) because he felt substack as a company was purposefully hosting very harmful discourse about trans people as a way of getting eyeballs to monetise. I'm guessing his opinion would have been that Simon shouldn't have spread Dan's stuff.

[seankenny]

I am very aware how hurtful, off putting and nasty his comments are.

Is this a high enough bar to limit speech? After all, “hurtful and nasty” is how some Muslims describe the prospect of seeing pictures of the prophet Mohammad, even if those pictures were made in Islamic cities by Islamic artists. If that’s the bar then we can’t teach Middle Eastern or South Asian art history. And we certainly couldn’t have books by apostate ex-Muslim women writing about their experiences.

No nasty art! It’s got a whiff of Mary Whitehouse about it.

[northern yob]

It's really irking me that Dan gets to sit back and ride this one out. He can't be civil enough to maintain an account here, gets Shark to post about his crap, and conveniently stays silent. If he wants to publish his hateful views he should stand up and own and defend them. But he has a convenient get out not to do that.

Also, great post earlier from Ben.

I might be completely wrong but I don’t believe Dan’s primary motivation is hate. I’m not denying there’s some stuff in there that’s pretty distasteful, but my reading of much of his output is to deliberately be provocative and at times inappropriate as a kind of satire on where he thinks society is going and to get people to think about that… as Adam quite eloquently put it, some of his stuff is interesting and it’s a shame it’s mired down in a lot of bullshit. I think everyone should be careful before branding him as quite the evil unsavoury character it seems he’s being painted as….

[jwi]

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?

The way I like to think about it is that conservatism has a strain that is anti-rational. For that strain, using logic, observations and first principles is a no more valid way of reaching a conclusion than for instance social hierarchy, tradition or divine inspiration. If the pope/QAnon/some cool dude says the earth is flat that is at least as valid argument as observing the shade of the earth on the moon, that the sun has different height on the sky midday on different latitudes, or that a pendeldum left swinging turns as they day turns. Probably a more valid argument, at least if it can be backed up with feelings or social cohesion.

That is why I rarely bother to argue with anti-rationalists anymore. Mockery is better.

[Oldmanmatt]

I am very aware how hurtful, off putting and nasty his comments are.

Is this a high enough bar to limit speech? After all, “hurtful and nasty” is how some Muslims describe the prospect of seeing pictures of the prophet Mohammad, even if those pictures were made in Islamic cities by Islamic artists. If that’s the bar then we can’t teach Middle Eastern or South Asian art history. And we certainly couldn’t have books by apostate ex-Muslim women writing about their experiences.

No nasty art! It’s got a whiff of Mary Whitehouse about it.

There’s a little straw in your man there.

Is anyone denying that the line is blurry? I think everyone has, including Ducko, stated or implied varying degrees of blur. There has been mention of, and examples of, manufactured offence. Most people seem to see such things for what they are.
Broadly, what you have described doesn’t happen, because most people, even when they can’t articulate why; recognise a difference in the two scenarios.
It won’t ever be a clear line, but broadly, as a whole, society seems to have a handle on where it is. It moves with context, it moves with “intent”. Dan’s “clean up” meme, becomes much more an issue because of the timing. Three weeks ago, it would have appeared less antisemitic. Intent, in that case, has been assumed by the audience, based on that timing (we don’t actually know if that was the intent) and most/many feel the line has been crossed.

[seankenny]

The way I like to think about it is that conservatism has a strain that is anti-rational.

This is totally true, but left wing non-conservatives are equally anti-rational at times. And left authoritarianism is most definitely a thing, with all the anti-rationality which that implies.

I write this as a fairly typical left liberal type, but I don’t think we should pretend we are any less prone to this than conservatives.

[Moo]

I just can't see where you draw the line on free speech without some kind of threat of violence. Under violence I guess I'd include all the stuff about making someone leave the country etc because I don't see how you do that without violence.

So you think it's only hate speech if you're threatening to physically attack somebody ? It's possible to direct hate speech towards someone wthout the threat of physical violence. If you were to say to someone "I hate you because you've got yellow skin" then that's hate speech plain and simple.

From the oxford dictionary.

Hate Speech
noun
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

[seankenny]

I am very aware how hurtful, off putting and nasty his comments are.

Is this a high enough bar to limit speech? After all, “hurtful and nasty” is how some Muslims describe the prospect of seeing pictures of the prophet Mohammad, even if those pictures were made in Islamic cities by Islamic artists. If that’s the bar then we can’t teach Middle Eastern or South Asian art history. And we certainly couldn’t have books by apostate ex-Muslim women writing about their experiences.

No nasty art! It’s got a whiff of Mary Whitehouse about it.

There’s a little straw in your man there.

Is anyone denying that the line is blurry? I think everyone has, including Ducko, stated or implied varying degrees of blur. There has been mention of, and examples of, manufactured offence. Most people seem to see such things for what they are.
Broadly, what you have described doesn’t happen,

I’m not saying that the line is blurry, I’m saying that I suspect many people in power would set the bar very low. As for the rough scenario I outlined, something very similar absolutely has happened:

https://archive.ph/2023.01.10-125634/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html

And countries where the law centres on some variant of “causing offence” tend to be terrible from a freedom of speech perspective.

I don’t think Dan’s “clean up” meme was in any sense an edge case where we might have a discussion. But what to do about such things? David Aaronovitch had a good substack article this weekend which covered this topic, amongst others:

“Myself, much though I deprecate these symbols I deprecate almost as much wasting significant police time going after such ignorant and almost certainly non-violent youngsters. There are genuinely violent young men around who may target Jews with harassment and worse. And there are more deadly threats out there - by and large the security services know who they are. Let’s concentrate on them.”

https://davidaaronovitch.substack.com/p/britains-frightened-jews

[petejh]

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.

Dawes isn't from Totnes is he?

[Rocksteady]

I just can't see where you draw the line on free speech without some kind of threat of violence. Under violence I guess I'd include all the stuff about making someone leave the country etc because I don't see how you do that without violence.

So you think it's only hate speech if you're threatening to physically attack somebody ? It's possible to direct hate speech towards someone wthout the threat of physical violence. If you were to say to someone "I hate you because you've got yellow skin" then that's hate speech plain and simple.

From the oxford dictionary.

Hate Speech
noun
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

No, I can agree with that definition, abusive and threatening are suggestive of violence. I think a reasonable person could define what is abusive or threatening i.e. a jury could sensibly work it out. What I don't think should be covered is "offensive or insulting". Because those things are too subjective.

 In fact, if you extended it further to political views we would have a much more civilized society.

[webbo]

I rather suspect Dan is pissing himself at this thread. He’s done what he set out to to do I.e. cause a shit storm in a tea cup.

[stone]

There is a huge difference between saying something ought to be illegal and saying it is nastiness that we should call out as such and not spread.

[Oldmanmatt]

I am very aware how hurtful, off putting and nasty his comments are.

Is this a high enough bar to limit speech? After all, “hurtful and nasty” is how some Muslims describe the prospect of seeing pictures of the prophet Mohammad, even if those pictures were made in Islamic cities by Islamic artists. If that’s the bar then we can’t teach Middle Eastern or South Asian art history. And we certainly couldn’t have books by apostate ex-Muslim women writing about their experiences.

No nasty art! It’s got a whiff of Mary Whitehouse about it.

There’s a little straw in your man there.

Is anyone denying that the line is blurry? I think everyone has, including Ducko, stated or implied varying degrees of blur. There has been mention of, and examples of, manufactured offence. Most people seem to see such things for what they are.
Broadly, what you have described doesn’t happen,

I’m not saying that the line is blurry, I’m saying that I suspect many people in power would set the bar very low. As for the rough scenario I outlined, something very similar absolutely has happened:

https://archive.ph/2023.01.10-125634/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html

And countries where the law centres on some variant of “causing offence” tend to be terrible from a freedom of speech perspective.

I don’t think Dan’s “clean up” meme was in any sense an edge case where we might have a discussion. But what to do about such things? David Aaronovitch had a good substack article this weekend which covered this topic, amongst others:

“Myself, much though I deprecate these symbols I deprecate almost as much wasting significant police time going after such ignorant and almost certainly non-violent youngsters. There are genuinely violent young men around who may target Jews with harassment and worse. And there are more deadly threats out there - by and large the security services know who they are. Let’s concentrate on them.”

https://davidaaronovitch.substack.com/p/britains-frightened-jews

I wasn’t really think of legal restrictions, by and large, in the UK, these seem to be working at about the right level.

I was thinking more about that nebulous beast, Society.

I feel that there is a tendency for hand wringing and despair by many, that the world is drowning in hate and extremism. I would be surprised if the actual percentages at the extremes have changed much. The absolute numbers probably increase with population, but the vast majority of the population sit on a broad hump of the bell curve at “moderate”. They just kinda know what’s “humour” or “legitimate lampooning” and can see where things are moving into “nasty”.
It ain’t new. A delve through the pre-internet “Letters to the Editor” horror show, indicates that “Disgusted, of Hounslow” has been a fixture of UK society for some generations now.
I am not suggesting that that moderation (some might say, indifference) is always a protection against the rise of extremism, half of that middle lean a little more one way than the other, so the right nudge can cause a temporary swing and that can lead to some pretty awful times.

What does bother me, is that the current, instant, easy share, easily manipulated, uncontrollable, media environment is speeding up the radicalisation of dangerous individuals.

I wonder, how many potentially murderous pricks, lost enough fervour, whilst waiting for their quarterly hate news letter to arrive, that they never crossed the line.

The right mind and a few hours scrolling, now, and the next wanker is rampaging.

And, stuff like Dan’s offerings are feeding into that. Not ordering it, not demanding it, not calling for it, but adding to the berserker brew. Another E number in the Kool-aid.

Where to draw the line between official intervention and societal condemnation is just something we will have to wrestle with, case by case.

As we have here.

I don’t believe this is what Dan wanted, I suspect he wanted validation of his views, to see support (however muted).  I also expect that he will rationalise the criticism into some kind of justification and allow it to reinforce his feeling of exceptionalism as a “knower of the truth”.

[andy popp]

It's really irking me that Dan gets to sit back and ride this one out. He can't be civil enough to maintain an account here, gets Shark to post about his crap, and conveniently stays silent. If he wants to publish his hateful views he should stand up and own and defend them. But he has a convenient get out not to do that.

Also, great post earlier from Ben.

I might be completely wrong but I don’t believe Dan’s primary motivation is hate. I’m not denying there’s some stuff in there that’s pretty distasteful, but my reading of much of his output is to deliberately be provocative and at times inappropriate as a kind of satire on where he thinks society is going and to get people to think about

I was already wondering along these lines. I don't know Dan so I don't know if he has really fallen into these kinds of belief sets (plausible; I've seen other people travel in similar directions) or if he just thinks he's some terribly brave and provocative edgelord.

Like I said, I've no idea ... but in the end I think his "true" intent/motivation/mindset is much less important than the impact. Here I agree with Matt's most recent post. Whatever Dan really thinks, this is another drop in the stream of far-right propaganda swilling around the internet. Only a tiny drop, but still a contribution. It's not just shitposting. Homegrown far-right terrorism is a serious threat, both in Europe and North America and radicalisation happens online.

So maybe, as per Webbo's post, our response is giving him everything he wants (tho' he'd probably also find validation in being ignored), but I think this stuff should always be called out. And yeah, it still irks me that Dan can avoid owning and defending his crap.

[jwi]

The way I like to think about it is that conservatism has a strain that is anti-rational.

This is totally true, but left wing non-conservatives are equally anti-rational at times. And left authoritarianism is most definitely a thing, with all the anti-rationality which that implies.

I write this as a fairly typical left liberal type, but I don’t think we should pretend we are any less prone to this than conservatives.

Sure anti-rationalism is found in individuals across the political spectrum, and there might even be philosophers and ideologues on the left who are/were against enlightenment (Hegel perhaps ... ? Almost every single insignificant post-modernistic shithead) . But most of the important conservative ideologues from Burke and Maistr, being opposed to enlightenment and rationalism is a central tenet of conservative thought.

Anyway, the enlightenment should always be defended regardless of the clothes her opponents wear.

[stone]

In the brief face to face chat I had with Dan, how he came across seemed at odds with him being some sort of wilful anti-enlightenment edgelord .

His anti-vax views were espoused drawing on all-cause-mortality rates and molecular biology. It was misinformation but it was an argument using bogus facts framed as a rational/informed person might frame the argument if they were genuine facts.

His transphobia was espoused in a sort of "gender critical" framing.

My impression at the time was simply that he was sadly gullible and I was shocked by that.

My view is that his stuff needs not to be spread partly so as to protect gullible people from becoming "Dans" themselves. Obviously though the most important reason is to not have oppression of LGBT+ people or pointless deaths due to vaccine refusal etc.

Perhaps I'm the only person here who watches Coronation Street. Anyway Dan seems to me to be doing almost exactly like Max in Coronation Street was doing when Max made hate-videos. The difference is that Max was a troubled 17year-old who was struggling at school. Dan doesn't seem to have any such excuses. But apparently, that is typically the case with Alt-Right proponents etc.