UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => the log pile => Topic started by: shark on July 13, 2022, 03:02:11 pm
-
Dan Cheetham asked me to flag up that he has been working on a website for an upcoming book:
https://www.modernclimber.co.uk
There are some (short) sample pages on the website.
-
This looks excellent. Back when printed media was the norm their seemed to be room, albeit small, for this sort of perspective. In the modern age it does seem to have disappeared, or perhaps it just sinks now that human gatekeepers have been replaced by algorithms. Or perhaps such energies get vented in other directions.
Would suggest deleting /about from the above link as navigation appears limited.
-
Indeed. Looking forward to read it.
Sarah-Jane's "A Feeling for Rock" also has that sense.
https://dobdobdob.co.uk/a-feeling-for-rock/
-
I read three extracts and there were four philosopher quotes. Quite the ratio. Very impressive that Dan has read Spinoza.
-
Dan has updated the website with further excerpts and photography to go in the eventual book
https://www.modernclimber.co.uk
-
Dan has produced a fanzine. If anyone wants a copy get in touch with him via Instagram
https://instagram.com/mod3rn_climb3r?igshid=MWZjMTM2ODFkZg==
-
Review:
Genuinely brilliant.
A comically depressing take on the current state of things both in climbing and in the broader western world.
The use of imagination, articulation and imagery had me hooked from cover to cover.
The gullible dopamine addicted brainlets of current day are easy prey for the virtue signalling cunts and the training plan crafting opportunists.
The sheeple flock in support of the current thing taking little more than a moment to consider the implications of such things on their lives and those who will inherit our societies after we pass.
If you’re easily offended/offended on behalf of others or perhaps enjoy soy lattes whilst chilling with other beta’s you may want to swerve this as there’s a likelihood you’ll end up requiring time in your chosen safe space with a vibrator stuck up your ring piece.
10/10 - one of the easier wanks I’ve had.
-
Didn't realise UKB had morphed into 4Chan... :wank:
-
If you’re easily offended/offended on behalf of others or perhaps enjoy soy lattes whilst chilling with other beta’s you may want to swerve this as there’s a likelihood you’ll end up requiring time in your chosen safe space with a vibrator stuck up your ring piece.
10/10 - one of the easier wanks I’ve had.
This is one of the cringiest things Ive read on here
-
Now available online:
https://www.modernclimber.co.uk/
-
Dan has produced a fanzine. If anyone wants a copy get in touch with him via Instagram
https://instagram.com/mod3rn_climb3r?igshid=MWZjMTM2ODFkZg==
Some paper copies are still available
-
Julius Evola and the O9A in the fanzine. Dan’s certainly fash-curious. :-\
-
Reads like if Thomas Mair was a climber and wrote a manifesto, think I’ll save my money thanks.
-
Reads like if Thomas Mair was a climber and wrote a manifesto, think I’ll save my money thanks.
It’s free!
-
Reads like if Thomas Mair was a climber and wrote a manifesto, think I’ll save my money thanks.
It’s free!
Time is money
-
Out of interest Simon, why are you promoting this?
-
I found some of it interesting and other bits humorous.
Is that okay with you Bradders?
-
Out of interest Simon, why are you promoting this?
Strange comment. Care to expand on why you think he shouldn’t?
There’s a barren desert of left-field culture in climbing meedja since the advent of social media/UKC/climbing-goes-mainstream. Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder.. but even if you happened to think Dan’s ‘cultural output’ was a steaming pile of cultural excrement, what argument would you have against a diverse landscape of weird and wonderful viewpoints.
-
Out of interest Simon, why are you promoting this?
Mainly because Dan asked me and also what Pete said
-
Out of interest Simon, why are you promoting this?
Strange comment. Care to expand on why you think he shouldn’t?
There’s a barren desert of left-field culture in climbing meedja since the advent of social media/UKC/climbing-goes-mainstream. Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder.. but even if you happened to think Dan’s ‘cultural output’ was a steaming pile of cultural excrement, what argument would you have against a diverse landscape of weird and wonderful viewpoints.
I didn't say he shouldn't promote it, and I don't necessarily think he shouldn’t either; that's an assumption you've made. I just asked him why he is.
I found some of it interesting and other bits humorous.
Is that okay with you Bradders?
Yes....are you concerned it's not okay?
-
I mean… it would be a very odd comment to make if you thought he should promote Dan’s book.
So, it’s a rational assumption to make - that you question whether he should. Isn’t it? :shrug:
-
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.
-
What's the essence of Dan's viewpoint?
My impression is it has two threads:
- anti-vax misinformation
- railing against accepting LGBT+ people into wider society
I sort of see it as a civic duty to defuse/stand-up-against any promulgation of either of these.
I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood this.
-
I mean… it would be a very odd comment to make if you thought he should promote Dan’s book.
So, it’s a rational assumption to make - that you question whether he should. Isn’t it? :shrug:
Well, apparently not.
-
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.
-
I'm wondering if Bradder's question (because I've asked myself the same question) may really have been; why does Dan's stuff get this promotion when other things don't? I believe Simon when he says it's largely because Dan asked him to. But I wonder if he should think again?
I've just read as much of it as I could take. At one level it's simply an immensely tedious pile of drivel (IMO etc. etc., obviously). But at another it really stinks. As FD points out there are uncritical nods to a fascist philosopher and a Neo-Nazi cult associated with a number of crimes. There's anti-vax conspiracies, climate change denial, hints about the NWO and "cultural Marxism" (neither of which can ever be separated from anti-semitism), and various other unpleasant bigotries, as others have pointed out this morning.
So, if Dan wants it promoted here (though god knows why he would, surely this place represents all that he affects to disdain in modern climbing) then let him create an account, try not to get banned again, and promote it himself. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
-
Reads like if Thomas Mair was a climber and wrote a manifesto, think I’ll save my money thanks.
It’s free!
Over priced.
-
It's not just poking fun at Lattice et al. any more. Since Dan fell down the rabbit hole there's all sorts of nasty stuff in there (I haven't seen the latest but occasionally came across bits and pieces on Instagram). Freedom of speech is fair enough but at least some of it is barely-disguised hate speech.
-
I mean, wtf is this?
https://www.instagram.com/p/CyI5UUGNUvh/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphorrhea
-
Could someone with children please tell me at what point they usually stop drawing and writing about willies all the time?
-
Could someone with children please tell me at what point they usually stop drawing and writing about willies all the time?
Children?
May I introduce you to His Majesty’s Armed Forces, all branches?
-
Could someone with children please tell me at what point they usually stop drawing and writing about willies all the time?
Children?
May I introduce you to His Majesty’s Armed Forces, all branches?
Lol fair enough, I’m not a man who chooses to spend the vast majority of his time with large groups of other men…
Thinking about Dan’s book and what lies behind it, it’s all rather sad and destructive. On the other hand, I’m glad that there isn’t much of a constructive outlet in this country for many of the views expressed, but I also find the obvious sense of disconnection and atomisation depressing. (Yes, disconnection, even though the material travels down well worn grooves.)
-
There is a fine line between a good spicy meme and the kind of thing that goes in your FBI domestic terrorism watchlist casefile and I fear like this Instagram account has pitched its tent in the latter's campsite... also the 4chan-lite review of it posted here made me want to throw up in my mouth a little...
-
Also anyone who unironically uses the phrase "Soy Boys" is a tremendous fuckwit I'm afraid
-
What does atomisation mean? :-\
-
In sociological terms, it'd mean something like the breaking down of a society into isolated individuals.
-
I'm wondering if Bradder's question (because I've asked myself the same question) may really have been; why does Dan's stuff get this promotion when other things don't? I believe Simon when he says it's largely because Dan asked him to. But I wonder if he should think again?
I haven’t read Dan’s book, or whatever it is.. I don’t feel I need or want to. I’ve always been in favour of people creating and expressing themselves however they feel they want to, within the law.. (not within the confines of good taste or ‘not causing offence’).
And if their output leads to them being considered bellends for it, then so be it.
-
I haven’t read Dan’s book or whatever it is.. I don’t feel I need or want to. I’ve always been in favour of people creating and expressing theme selves however they feel they want to, within the law.. not within the confines of food taste or not causing offence.
And if their output leads to them being considered bellends for it, then so be it.
Isn't that just what has happened though
-
Yes.
-
I'm wondering if Bradder's question (because I've asked myself the same question) may really have been; why does Dan's stuff get this promotion when other things don't? I believe Simon when he says it's largely because Dan asked him to. But I wonder if he should think again?
To give a less flippant reply; yes this was partly it, but I was also curious specifically why Simon would share it since my understanding is that he's banned Dan from the forum on multiple occasions, for expressing many of the same exact themes which riddle his "book". It seems bizarre to seemingly invite him back and to actively and repeatedly seem to plug his content when, if anything, he seems to have gotten much worse.
And that was before I'd even read the fucking thing.
I've just read as much of it as I could take. At one level it's simply an immensely tedious pile of drivel (IMO etc. etc., obviously). But at another it really stinks. As FD points out there are uncritical nods to a fascist philosopher and a Neo-Nazi cult associated with a number of crimes. There's anti-vax conspiracies, climate change denial, hints about the NWO and "cultural Marxism" (neither of which can ever be separated from anti-semitism), and various other unpleasant bigotries, as others have pointed out this morning.
Not to mention the casual misogyny and clear and obvious racism. The Instagram post Will shared is nothing compared to the corresponding article in the book. I mean FFS if the choice is between this and the cheerful and energetic psych for climbing that Lattice put out I'll happily tattoo the Lattice logo on my face.
There's plenty of space in climbing for some anti-establishment thinking and for advocating an approach to climbing which disregards numbers. It does not in any way follow that such thought processes should have to be accompanied by all of the abhorrent things espoused by Dan.
That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be shared. But I wish it hadn't been.
-
On a serious note, it’s a man’s take on how he currently see things.
I actually find it pretty refreshing to see someone put effort into producing something that’s a little different and in my view comical.
I can see how it doesn’t appeal to all and that’s fine, different strokes different folks.
I think as an adult you need to approach everything with a certain degree of humility, even if you’re convinced on your conclusion it’s good to challenge what you believe even if it’s just to confirm your position.
Maybe some of the points touched on in this wee book are worth taking the time to ponder.
If everyone was the same the world would be a boring place so I say if someone’s not breaking the law or inciting violence then crack on.
As for this being described as ‘hate speech’ good luck defining something so vague as that.
Anyway, I’m off to draw a penis on a bathroom stall - good day to you all.
-
The Instagram post Will shared is nothing compared to the corresponding article in the book.
The date on that Instagram post is the key. The day after Hamas went house to house and murdered hundreds of Israeli men, women, and children, Dan posts a picture of some Arab gunmen out on a "clean up". Disgraceful.
-
What mystifies me about this is that face-to-face Dan has always seemed so friendly and polite.
When I last bumped into him at the crag, he actually mentioned how he had been banned from online climbing sites etc. I asked what that was about and he mentioned his transphobia and his anti-vax viewpoint. He seemed to genuinely believe it all himself. He talked about it in a very amicable, measured way.
I find all those views deeply abhorrent (and frankly dangerous to a decent society IMO), but Dan himself seems a nice guy.
-
To give a less flippant reply; yes this was partly it, but I was also curious specifically why Simon would share it since my understanding is that he's banned Dan from the forum on multiple occasions, for expressing many of the same exact themes which riddle his "book". It seems bizarre to seemingly invite him back and to actively and repeatedly seem to plug his content when, if anything, he seems to have
This understanding isn’t correct. Dan serially registered, caused a stir, then requested that his account/membership was deactivated. This happened I think three times. On the fourth occasion when he asked to be deactivated one of the moderators agreed with him that if he was deactivated then it was conditional with a cooling off period (six months IIRC). However, when he attempted to re-register by stealth before that period I deleted the account and told him he wouldn’t be allowed to re-register.
-
On a serious note, it’s a man’s take on how he currently see things
Sure, but also on a serious note, it's the take of a complete bellend
-
And if anyone describes it as a "hot take", they too are one.
-
I think as an adult you need to approach everything with a certain degree of humility, even if you’re convinced on your conclusion it’s good to challenge what you believe even if it’s just to confirm your position.
Maybe some of the points touched on in this wee book are worth taking the time to ponder.
Sorry Ducko but this defense is, at best, as tedious as the subject matter which it seeks to stand up for.
Trying to relegate this kind of nudge wink fringe drivel down to the level of ‘wee book worth pondering’, is akin to saying Mein Kampf is worth a whip through for the prose.
-
Adulthood is hard.
Getting old is hard.
Realising that your impact on the world, even if you are “successful” is at best fleeting and more probably the dampest of squibs. That your cherished world view, is not universal. Accepting that you are not, actually, in control of your own destiny; let alone that of others.
All hard, all painful to a thinking individual (and a list that barely scratches the first few microns on the surface of the total you must confront).
Watching somebody drown in that. Seeing somebody descending into incoherent paranoia. Adopting hatred, anger and self righteous indignation, as some proxy for armour against the realities of life and difference.
Is hard.
It is, perhaps, even harder to be told by someone else*; that this is “art” and “worth pondering” . No, reading this (and I did, though regret doing so) is the intellectual equivalent of casually watching a fellow human being subjected to physical torture. Frankly my urge is to intervene and give relief, not celebrate it.
I find it telling that an individual can assert that the hatred and bile is “a valid view point worth pondering “ , yet criticism of that hatred and (clear) intolerance is, somehow, the real intolerance.
*Is it though? Is it someone else? Dan so frequently tried to populate this little world with imaginary, like minded, alter egos (better than confront his lonely reality, I guess).
-
Some interesting takes on “Freedom of speech” and sensitivity to criticism by some posters on this thread.
Definitely something worth taking some time to ponder.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
Oh ding DONG!!!!!
(https://i.ibb.co/7jmFn9b/t-MR8-KKUH-400x400.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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…….??
-
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.
-
I don’t believe anything should be censored pretty much for the reasons Droyd highlighted. Interesting debate though….
-
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!
-
.... 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 (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstatesman.com%2Fculture%2F2019%2F04%2Fnature-writings-fascist-roots))
A recent example in Totnes (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssl).
(Mainsteam media so obviously can be ignored)
Ben, thanks for articulating what I had wanted to say better than I could have.
-
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 (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstatesman.com%2Fculture%2F2019%2F04%2Fnature-writings-fascist-roots))
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)
-
.... 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 (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstatesman.com%2Fculture%2F2019%2F04%2Fnature-writings-fascist-roots))
A recent example in Totnes (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssl).
(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.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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 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
-
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.
-
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?
-
Do you think it's 'good for climbing' Stone? :worms:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :wank:
-
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# (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.
-
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 :wank:
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".
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 :wank:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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….
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
conspiracy nuts are perfectly able to dress their inane believes in something akin to rational arguments, but if you challenge one argument they never change their mind but quickly change to another line of argument to spout whatever ignorance their father/the pope/elon musk or whomever taught them. Their belief in authority is much stronger than their willingness to learn about the world from rational discourse.
-
conspiracy nuts are perfectly able to dress their inane believes in something akin to rational arguments, but if you challenge one argument they never change their mind but quickly change to another line of argument to spout whatever ignorance their father/the pope/elon musk or whomever taught them. Their belief in authority is much stronger than their willingness to learn about the world from rational discourse.
This is painful for everyone. I don’t see a huge difference between conspiracy nuts, religious extremists and, frankly, quite ordinary people who have their tea leaves read or believe in astrology.
Comfort in the thought that someone or something in in control (even if that control is malicious).
I’m feeling a bit adrift myself right now.
There’s been so much chatter around the idea that Hamas is attempting to lure Israel in to Gaza and that a “surprise” awaits them there. The Iranian “warning “ today giving those rumours meat. How bad might that surprise be? Is it real at all?
Even if you think you are a “rational thinker “ it can be tough to know when you’re just being paranoid or legitimately concerned. After all, bad shit actually does happen, there really are conspiracies and sometimes “they” really don’t tell you everything.
(Two carrier groups. That’s a lot. One has enough firepower to eclipse WW2).
I’m exaggerating for effect here, I guess what I’m trying to say is, I haven’t a clue how it should be dealt with. I see it more as an illness and yet, also, feel that the perpetrators of such shit should be punished. 🤷🏻♂️
-
Dan Cheetham asked me to flag up that he has been working on a website for an upcoming book:
https://www.modernclimber.co.uk
There are some (short) sample pages on the website.
Response = positive
Dan has produced a fanzine. If anyone wants a copy get in touch with him via Instagram
https://instagram.com/mod3rn_climb3r?igshid=MWZjMTM2ODFkZg==
Response = shitstorm
I can’t say I gave a lot of thought to linking Dan’s fanzine. I did it because Dan asked and I thought some members would be interested particularly as he was active as a member before.
My personal view was that it was largely incomprehensible and Redhead like but could relate to the theme of railing against modern climbing media although it became repetitive. I quickly gave up on the rest as it was perplexing and I couldn’t untangle what’s was or wasn’t a joke. I thought most would similarly look at it find it diverting and on the whole shrug it off.
Given the response I’m sorry I posted the link. I didn’t anticipate doing so would upset and anger people.
I’ll happily take this thread down if that’s what is generally wanted. I think most know I’m personally only really interested in climbing threads and would be happy to do away altogether with political ones.
-
Log pile?
-
Long overdue. IMO Dan played you and the rest UKB just how he wanted, as webbo pointed out earlier.
-
Long overdue. IMO Dan played you and the rest UKB just how he wanted, as webbo pointed out earlier.
Thanks Chris. Done
-
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….
I've spent a lot of time online on climbing forums (especially since my retirement in 2020) debunking covid, vaccination and lockdown conspiracies, highlighting racism (especially Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism), calling out gender hatred and arguing against the really stupid idea of absolute freedom of speech. Dan was the only person I didn't already know, who, when challenged (on covid/vaccination), made an effort to engage offline in a genuine human way, even admitting he was probably wrong in various communications, after I respectfully explained what was definitely incorrect with the conspiracy links he posted.
The bad actors who spread covid/vaccination conspiracies play a really dirty game that have plausibility that is hard to argue against without significant understanding of the detailed faulty nature of the 'snake oil' sales arguments. It's still ongoing now in major news outlets... just read the full on anti-lockdown spin in the Telegraph on what Prof Woolhouse actually said to the covid inquiry.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67125230