Careless Talk - Navel Gazing or Looking Skywards [Apotheosis in climbing]

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

Status
Not open for further replies.
A bit ike GazM, I think there's some interesting topics in here. The challenge is that Dan is quite bad at articulating his views on this to the average person posting on a forum and who might instinctively not share his viewpoint. I don't really feel in a position to judge whether bits of it are pseudo intellectual nonsense or clever and insightful because it would take too long to wade through the post and understand the points properly. But it does feel mostly like self indulgence rather than actually trying to start a debate, explain a viewpoint clearly, or explore the topics with people.

I do feel like some of the stuff posted by pro climbers is waffly bs though, so I'm with him in some of that. I'm just not convinced that Dan's talk isn't the same. I'm always reminded of Huber's "we just like to climb on the rocks like the monkeys like to climb in the trees, it's nothing special about climbing"
 
I went to the David Hockney exhibition at Factory last week. To me it largely felt like self-indulgent wankery. I do however appreciate that many people think otherwise.

I'm struggling to see the offence that many have taken to Dan this time around seeing as he was politely engaging with people who seemed interested on a thread that he started. I know there's lots of history but give a guy a chance 😄.
 
I'm struggling to see the offence that many have taken to Dan this time around seeing as he was politely engaging with people who seemed interested on a thread that he started. I know there's lots of history but give a guy a chance 😄.
To argue the other side: how many chances do you give? He's gone through several already.

I'd also argue he hasn't exactly been polite so far. To pick a couple of examples from his first post:
...like a dog looking for its dinner and ending up cleaning it's own backside with its tongue, while imagining it's just found a prime steak to eat...
This shit is Neoliberalism dressed up as pseudo spiritualism wrapped up in nihilistic despair.
Not the worst that anyone's come out with, but if you want to engage in good faith and you know your posts have a history of riling people up then I don't think it's the best way of starting a conversation.
 
I hear Duckos point about listening to alternate perspectives, but on the other hand I also think his and Dan's (and Andy Kirkpatricks) views are alt-right and beyond what I would consider normal discourse. I've got no real interest engaging with these points of view. If that makes me a soy boy cuck melt then so be it.
 
I hear Duckos point about listening to alternate perspectives, but on the other hand I also think his and Dan's (and Andy Kirkpatricks) views are alt-right and beyond what I would consider normal discourse. I've got no real interest engaging with these points of view. If that makes me a soy boy cuck melt then so be it.

I’m not sure I follow how that’s alt-right.
It’s more a personal take on authenticity and life choices, not really tied to politics or ideology.
I think labelling it that way might miss the point, not all critiques of lifestyle choices need to be seen through a political lens.

With all due respect, It would appear that you do not know what you are talking about.
 
I’m not sure I follow how that’s alt-right.
It’s more a personal take on authenticity and life choices, not really tied to politics or ideology.
I think labelling it that way might miss the point, not all critiques of lifestyle choices need to be seen through a political lens.

With all due respect, It would appear that you do not know what you are talking about.
I'm not actually talking about the post in this thread, apologies that wasn't clear. I was referring to this post: Post in thread 'Dan’s book' https://ukbouldering.com/threads/dan’s-book.32002/post-682314

Your approach is different in this thread, so fair enough on that front, and I don't know you personally, so perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about. But that post is either a brilliantly disguised bit of irony (which I think is unlikely), or reasonably representative of your views, and it's stuck with me. You're entitled to them, and I'm entitled to think they're full of shit. Again, if me not having any interest in engaging with that kind of discourse somehow makes me the problem, so be it.
 
The trouble with a maximalist free speech approach is that in the end it ends up excusing hate speech. This discussion has been had on here before (in fact, it was in the same Dan's Book thread: https://ukbouldering.com/threads/dan’s-book.32002/page-4#post-682839). Censorship is always a judgement call but it is obviously trite bullshit to just say "Nothing should be censored," because some things self evidently have to be.
 
I'm not actually talking about the post in this thread, apologies that wasn't clear. I was referring to this post: Post in thread 'Dan’s book' https://ukbouldering.com/threads/dan’s-book.32002/post-682314

Your approach is different in this thread, so fair enough on that front, and I don't know you personally, so perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about. But that post is either a brilliantly disguised bit of irony (which I think is unlikely), or reasonably representative of your views, and it's stuck with me. You're entitled to them, and I'm entitled to think they're full of shit. Again, if me not having any interest in engaging with that kind of discourse somehow makes me the problem, so be it.

Contamination by association then.

Most adults possess the ability to separate ideas and judge them independently based on merit, it’s generally decent advice as it allows a person to think more objectively rather than allowing emotions to cloud one’s judgement.

You’re absolutely right that you clearly know nothing about me and that perhaps you’ve assumed far too much.

As for hate speech, thats very subjective and notoriously difficult to define.

As a closing point, a post that could have explored an interesting topic and encouraged open discussion has been dismissed because of someone’s past.
 
Contamination by association then.

Most adults possess the ability to separate ideas and judge them independently based on merit, it’s generally decent advice as it allows a person to think more objectively rather than allowing emotions to cloud one’s judgement.

You’re absolutely right that you clearly know nothing about me and that perhaps you’ve assumed far too much.

As for hate speech, thats very subjective and notoriously difficult to define.

As a closing point, a post that could have explored an interesting topic and encouraged open discussion has been dismissed because of someone’s past.

Yeah, maybe I have. But if you don't want people to assume you possess alt right views, don't post in a way that reads like an alt-right greatest hits. I think it's fair comment to point that out.
 
.

As a closing point, a post that could have explored an interesting topic and encouraged open discussion has been dismissed because of someone’s past.
Also because the posts are poorly written (being rather hard work and deliberately inflammatory) if exploration and discussion are the aim...
 
As a closing point, a post that could have explored an interesting topic and encouraged open discussion has been dismissed because of someone’s past.

The thread is still going so there's that.. But if by dismissed you mean Dan being banned yet again then that's probably because as the admins have said, the OP literally asked to be banned. He was banned on the condition he doesn't keep reposting under different names. He keeps reposting under different names. He's proven himself time after time to be a tiresome troll with an axe to grind against anything in climbing he deems 'inauthentic'... whatever his current definition of 'authentic' might be. Btw... see Andy K's pivot to his current definition of authentic: 'being commercially-minded and hustling' for a hint of how convoluted and personal (aka BS) the whole concept of authenticity can be.

For professional attention seekers like Andy K, 'authenticity' is just another idea to use to seek an audience for their output. Maybe Dan is an amateur attention seeker. If *science'y* is a word, then what Dan offers is *philosophical'ey*.

The topic of 'authenticity', pro climbers, commercialism etc. etc. has been done a lot on here before and no doubt will be in future. We don't need trolls like Dan to have a decent debate.

You're free to disagree. I haven't seen you post much on the topic of authenticity yourself.. just defenses of yourself and Dan. If what Dan posted was genuinely that interesting he'd probably survive...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top