UKH

Andrew Kirkpatrick earns money through communicating about climbing. Why do climbers not challenge his views more? Why do they continue to support him financially? Here is his latest post:

“Ban all guns!” Seeing that a lot today on social media, an easy sell, an easy Like, especially for a Brit (most who have never seen a real gun before). It’s a sentiment, a solution that no one in their right mind would ever disagree with (unless you’re a red-neck or an NRA scumbag or a Texan!). Just think, there’s one gun for every man women and child in the US, a fact I discovered today on one of those fancy Facebook videos about the gun problem. Guns are funny things, easy to give up when you live in a gated community, with armed guards and the like, or a security team, or fine if the right person is being threatened by a bullet (like a president). Not knowing much about firearms it seems they’re very much like dogs, something worth having for fun and security - after all ‘house without a dog is like a house without a roof” - while at the same time knowing full well that occasionally one rips a baby to pieces. And yet, just now, as I read of Muslim mother strapping on a suicide vest, putting vests on her two daughters, nine and twelve, then blowing themselves up in a church, her son blowing himself up the same day, I have to ask why we don’t also ban Islam while we’re at it, start a campaign, get some traction, surely the death to guns/believers ratio undeniable? “But it’s different!” Some might say. But it’s not is it. Guns are shorthand for something else, like Islam, both more about the ‘other’. More importantly, guns and the mode of murder-suicide are small details. do you think the media give a f*ck about dead children? No, they’re just ammunition. No, the real issue is the one that gets the least airtime, the least print, the one of mental health, the question the impact of medication, corrupted and unreformed belief systems, an atomised insane society that breads killers, issues far harder to compress into hip little anti this or anti that videos on Facebook.

Surely he's using an example of a family of suicide bombers as an argument alongside the guns issue. That's how I'm reading it.

Maybe you've just jumped the gun, so to speak.

wasn't there a long thread about this some time ago, or maybe it was a different but similar piece from Andy Kirkpatrick

Please explain, I'm maybe not fluent with Andy Kirkpatrick rational.

If he compared banning guns with banning suicide vests I'd be fine with that.

If he argued to ban all religions, I'd be happy to hear him out.

But here, he compares banning guns with banning Islam. One is a weapon used to kill people, the other is a faith that is practiced by 1.8 billion people.

His argument appears to conflate two different issues as he states ‘as I read of Muslim mother strapping on a suicide vest, putting vests on her two daughters, nine and twelve, then blowing themselves up in a church, her son blowing himself up the same day, I have to ask why we don’t also ban Islam while we’re at it, start a campaign, get some traction, surely the death to guns/believers ratio undeniable? “But it’s different!” Some might say. But it’s not is it.’

In this context, the obvious direct comparison would be to call for a ban on suicide vests (which are of course already banned). Instead he makes a bigoted, sweeping statement about the whole of Islam. 

Andy uses his platform to share dangerous and confused viewpoints and I cannot for the life of me work out why Montane continue to sponsor him. 

My Granny always said "c##tism is an equal opportunities employer, one can be black, white, male, female, gay, straight, golfer, climber, footballer, whatever and still be a c#nt" 

Those take heroes often lose sight of that. 

Unless of course he is comparing the calls/demands for total gun ban with the banning of Islam - Both very different but to firearm enthusiasts and muslims respectively, not so much...

It reads to me like the sort of thing you hear if you're unlucky enough to get into conversation with the bloke that's been sitting alone at the end of the bar since opening time and thinks the barman is his friend.

Just befuddled ranting really.

You can't kill someone with faith (unless you're a Jedi!). At some point you have to exercise rational judgement. There is a rational argument for calling for the banning of firearms and suicide vests, there is no rational argument for singling out one religion of many and calling for it to be banned. Conflating the two is disingenuous in the extreme.

I know a few firearm enthusiasts (mostly hunters but also a couple of pure enthusiasts) and they all seem perfectly intelligent enough to differentiate between a faith and a weapon, and understand an argument for banning weapons (even though they might disagree with it).

One is a weapon used by a tiny minority of idiots to kill people; the other is a faith used by a tiny minority of idiots to kill people. On that level, the comparison works fine.

He's clearly not calling for the banning of Islam. I read it as a call for reflection on simplistic knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings. And predictably, the response here is simplistic knee-jerk offence-taking.

Please explain how anyone can kill anyone else with Islam! By praying really hard?

There's more to him than a bar fly, he reminds me of American gonzo journalist Hunter S Thompson "the true voice of Thompson is revealed to be that of American moralist ... one who often makes himself ugly to expose the ugliness he sees around him."

Probably misunderstood.

A rather garbled rant in my view, or perhaps that is just the fault of the rather badly constructed  post.  I don't see it as anti-islamaphobia - he's just saying what happens.

However, banning religion - any religion is rather a wasted and pointless effort, which has been tried in many countries over the years with virtually no success.  We've even tried banning the catholic religion once.   

Alternatively we could ban mothers?

Alan

So I take it that you fundamentally disagree with the jailing and rendition of Islamist preachers who, as they see it, are simply teaching the true word of Allah?

Edit: I'm in no way supporting Andy's latest missive.

I first found out about Andrew Kirkpatrick when I read an interview of him a few weeks ago. He seemed very likeable - open, honest and self-effacing - and described himself as having a "dangerous mind". I took this to mean edgy, creative and anti-establishment.

Since then I've been following him on Instagram. Now I can only see a mind that is terribly confused, but also strangely predictable, whether that be about race, religion, the Middle-East, the economy, feminism, or anything else. Haven't read anything I couldn't have gotten from a tabloid.

Hmm, you can get a nasty paper cut off the Second Amendment.

No, I'm just curious about how you kill someone with faith. Punishing hate-preachers is another issue.

ps. I do understand how guns kill people - high velocity steel penetrates vital organs leading to failure of said organ and consequent death.

Good point, well made!

Scientology?

By using a person’s faith as a lever to get them to do something awful they otherwise wouldn’t do.

I read this as a fairly confused attempt to say that both guns and religion can be used for evil and the media (and many normal people) jump on the "ban guns" or "ban religion" (normally Islam in the current climate where groups like ISIS are using it as a platform) where as the real issue is the mental health of the people who actually do these things. I can understand his views that many school shooters in the states must be pretty messed up from a mental health point of view which could precipitate their actions however religion and the associated dogma is something different in my opinion.

It's pretty clumsy and the subject matter really requires very careful thought and writing to make sure that your views are accurately represented and understood.

I really hope this is the case as I do like Andy K from what little I know of him. Let's hope he can explain himself a bit better and think about employing an editor in the future so that he can keep doing what he's good at.

It's the same issue. They're using faith to justify murder.

On top of this latest round of religious madness we've got a few thousand years of well documented faith based mass murder and genocide.

He writes so much drivel that I don't bother reading anything of his anymore, which is a shame because some of the climbing stuff is interesting.

Obscene Stat of the year - so far in 2018 it's proven more deadly to be a US schoolchild than in the US army. 

Isn't this the same argument the NRA use: 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

People kill people ... with guns.

Islam kills people ... how exactly? Oh, I see, with guns, explosives, etc.

Seems like banning the guns, explosives, etc. is the best bet for reducing the killing ... unless you want to ban people.

I think he’s trying to say that simply calling for a ban on guns is as lazy as calling for a ban on Muslims.  I don’t agree with him but I don’t read it as being islamophobic.

That's how I read it: as absurd to totally ban guns because of some gun murders as to ban Islam because of some suicide bombings - which seems a defensible viewpoint and not at all Islamophobic.

But the writing seemed somewhat muddled, so I can't be sure that is what he meant!

Andy may be a great climber, and have some useful thoughts on kit.

But that's as far as I'd go; I've seen some of his other ranting topics, and thought they were, shall we say, 'ill-conceived'. He's not someone I'm going to pay any attention to for great words of philosophical wisdom.

You're right: people kill people and the NRA fail to see how much easier it is to complete that task with a semi-automatic assault rifle. With reference to Islamic terrorists attacks, (explosives, gun assaults, knife attacks, etc.), I assume they're not doing it for shits and giggles, so there is a direct correlation.

You're bonkers. 

I ended up in a bizarre Instagram exchange with Andy regarding Kanye West.

He seems a strange lad these days eh?

I don't think Andy's dangerous though. His slightly incoherent and rambling posts are a nice shot of ''different" in my otherwise bland timeline of bikini sunset selfies, sponsor approved content, and some fell running stuff. 

I in no way agree with Andy's views,  but am happy that he is able to express his opinions as he feels fit. I'm sure you can find the unfollow button if you need it. 

I'm surprised that many people do not consider Andrew Kirkpatrick's post Islamophobic.

His argument basically goes like this: Guns kill, Islam kills; should we ban both or treat mental illness better?

Islam kills. This is pure, undiluted Islamophobia.

That religion might be used by nutcases to justify killing is beside the point. Andrew draws a direct parallel between Islam (practiced by 1.8 billion overwhelmingly peaceful people) and guns (which are designed to kill).

Many belief systems - both religious and political - have been used as justification for killing, but it would be absurd to ban them. However you can make a reasonable argument to ban guns, zombie knives, explosives etc. Indeed this is the case to varying degrees in most Western countries.

Perhaps we have become so desensitized to Islamophobia that we do not even recognize it anymore.

Your reading his post wrong and missing the point. Keep reading past the bit where he writes 'ban islam'. To keep insisting islamaphobia is borderline slanderous.

To be clear, I have never suggested banning Andrew Kirkpatrick (see my first post) and I will continue to follow him on Instagram. I think his posts are a fascinating window into a very confused mind. However, I also think his views need challenging and I will not be supporting his work (nor Tommy Robinson's for that matter).

Racism and Islamophobia are taken very seriously in other sports, such as football, why not in climbing?

What is the point he's making? I'm getting the feeling that I almost know what it is, but I can't quite figure it out. 

Arguing over Andy’s latest rambling pseudo political/philosophical splurge is ultimately useless. I’m not sure he or anyone else can fathom them. Even his responses to well meaning comments only further the murk.

I well imagine him chuckling over the furore and circular confusion each one causes, adding fuel to this obnoxious side to him.

He certainly is a peculiar and singular person, fascinating even. But I wish people would ignore and disregard his drivel-laden outbursts such that he might get the message and focus on his climbing literature, which actually is genuinely amusing.

I propose a moratorium on AK threads. 

Or perhaps we are looking too hard for it.

Meanwhile, the suggestion above (not yours), that his sponsors might need to reconsider, is quite remarkable.

You have two posts on threads on UKC.
Both seem to be targeting a similar area regarding politics/religion, etc.
Are you using UKC to push an agenda?

I'm on UKC because I'm a climber. I have posted about a Palestinian cyclist losing a leg after being shot by an IDF sniper, and what I consider a dangerous Islamophobic post by one of the UK's best-known climbers. So yes, I guess I have a personal agenda to point out oppression and prejudice. If you were hoping to have discovered something a bit more sinister and fifth-columnist, I'm afraid I have to disappoint.

I'll make sure my next post about oppression is unrelated to Muslims - maybe bird bans or midgies or something...

It's nice you have a hobby, and thanks for sharing. But who is being oppressed?

youtube.com/watch?v=GS_1bzaj2fw&

I think you've nailed it Timmd.

Another of Andy's recent Instagram posts reads:

Q: “What advice would you give when it comes to writing that connects with people?” A: “Ambiguity”

Carefully crafted ambiguity allows Andy to do remarkable things, like draw a direct parallel between the danger of guns and the danger of Islam and still command the indulgence of his followers. He pulls this off with such dexterity that when someone refuses to ignore the parallel he has drawn they are considered "bonkers".

But this is where it gets scary - when some of Andy's followers try to interpret his views, they have a tendency to drop the ambiguity. This has given some outlandish comments on here such as "weapons are used to kill people... Islam is used to kill people". This is pure Islamophobia.

Andy has also said in a recent Instagram post that he wants to be an "influencer" when he grows up. If every chatroom in  the UK has an Andy Kirkpatrick we should be very worried! Maybe he's right about that "dangerous mind".

This guy:

www.middleeasteye.net/in-depth/features/israeli-sniper-ends-palestinian-cyclist-s-dream-1587355566

ps. that is one of my favorite Monty Python scenes though!

And so in what way do you think you're helping to relieve his "oppression"?

Haven't we done this before?

He is seemingly (purely from Twitter etc) a right-wing extremist with racist and Islamophobic views. We should boycott his talks and not give him any airtime. A shame as I enjoyed one of his shows a few years back before I became aware of this side of him (or possibly before he ever showed it.) 

The verb I used is 'point out', not 'relieve'

Ok, what  do you think "pointing out" his "oppression" achieves.

Like I say, it's nice you have a hobby.

He's clearly not calling for the banning of Islam. I read it as a call for reflection on simplistic knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings. And predictably, the response here is simplistic knee-jerk offence-taking.

i often don't agree with him but the culture of p.c. numptyhood and group think evidenced in this thread is revealing. I however, don't think it's a Marxist conspiracy, more that most of the population is thicker than mince. 

Pearls before swine. 

D

??????

It raises awareness. That is the function of the media. Public forums allow everyone to participate a little. I provided a link to an article.

In anticipation of your next question, raising public awareness has pushed the UK government into pressuring the Israelis to stop shooting unarmed demonstrators. Theresa May has even called for an international investigation. This would never have happened without media coverage.

The only awareness it has given me is that you are apparently utterly unwilling to engage with any of the many posters giving their interpretation of what he said, for example Dauphin’s post at 10:25 today.

Edit:  I don’t normally comment on dislikes but greetings disliker.  Go cry me a river. 

He's saying if you believe in banning guns (a policy supported by the majority of the UK population), you should also believe in banning Islam.

He doesn't say 'radical Islam', or 'extreme Islam', or 'hate-preachers', or 'Islamists', he just says Islam.

 > the response here is simplistic knee-jerk offence-taking.

This has now become the knee-jerk response to anyone that doesn't agree with you, as evidenced by several similar posts above. Instead, try putting forward a reasoned argument to explain how banning guns and banning Islam are comparable, because that is very clearly what Andrew Kirkpatrick suggests in his post.

As soon as we start discussing politics or whatever, we all are to some degree aren't we?

F*cking hell mate, it's a full-time job engaging with the many posters on here who disagree with me. I'm going to take a break now if you don't mind!

He's clearly not calling for a ban I agree.

But as has already been pointed out, the equivalent to the gun, is not Islam but the suicide vest as both are the means by which the murders have been carried out. 

So the false equivocation used to equate Islam with 'means of murder' rather than the explosives strapped to someone's chest is his whole point. 

Next it will be, 'call to ban diesel cars in cities, might as well also ban the Labour Party as they are also toxic'.

Do you understand how one is Islamophobia and the other is anti-Labour Party?

You're being disingenuous.

Many if not most ideologies and mythologies since the branching of the homosapien have been used to control the vulnerable, the poorly educated and the oppressed. Often said control yields acts of evil (including theft, torture, murder and genocide) for the benefit of a few in the 'name' of the ideology.

Christianity was of course the most notable culprit in the west 500 years ago. Islam is arguably the most visible (if not notable) culprit today.

Painting a picture of Islam being a totally innocent concept and removed from the evils perpetrated in its name is dishonest. Personally, I think Islam (much like Christianity) to be one of the great evils on its own. It has an innate ability to drive people otherwise humane to commit great horrors.

At this point it's very important to distinguish between 'Islam' (the ideology itself) and 'Muslim' (a follower of the ideology). This is why I find 'Islamophobia' to be an ambiguous and pretty useless term. It is philosophically difficult to argue that it is wrong to despise an ideology... but incredibly easy to argue that it is wrong to despise a person based on a prejudice. I personally do not blame or hate the Muslim woman Kirkpatrick describes for blowing herself up. Apparently neither does Kirkpatrick. Frankly I am saddened for her. But I do despise with all my being the ideology that was used by those with ill will to justify to her wholeheartedly that something so evil was for the good.

Perhaps, by half of the wikipedia definition, this makes both myself and Kirkpatrick 'Islamophobic', but it certainly not make us 'Muslimophobic'. In much the same way that I am 'BrexitoPhobic' but not 'BrexiteeroPhobic'. It's an important distinction. 

Nope, you're pointing it out merely clarifies your position and bias. You are not "the media."

Again, you are not the media. In fact, your posts here, if anything seem to have had a counter productive effect.

You're over-thinking this. I didn't mention any position, just posted a link to an article about a cyclist who had to have his leg amputated after being shot by the IDF. Now you know what happened to him; this was my only aim. Pretty small aim admittedly, but it only took a couple of minutes so seemed worthwhile.

Of course I'm not the media! UKC was the media in this case, and I posted a link on its public forum, just like everyone else can. It's not as big a deal as you're making out.

What makes you think I wasn't already aware of this and other incidents?

It's not a big deal, agreed...

Is he? 

Is he not suggesting that both concepts are equally simplistic and absurd responses to problems that are far more complex than the ownership of objects or particular religious beliefs? 

Put it in the context of some of his other stuff and my opinion is that he's a wannabee alt-right influencer. 

You're right about climber groupthink though , as so many seem willing to make pretty outlandish interpretation s to avoid the obvious conclusion that he's of a not very pleasant right wing persuasion.

No doubt we'll go through this again in a few months

His argument is as follows. I have edited for clarity, but the bottom section is the only logical continuation to the top section.

“Ban all guns!” Seeing that a lot today on social media, an easy sell, an easy Like, especially for a Brit (most who have never seen a real gun before). It’s a sentiment, a solution that no one in their right mind would ever disagree with [...] I have to ask why we don’t also ban Islam while we’re at it, start a campaign, get some traction, surely the death to guns/believers ratio undeniable? “But it’s different!” Some might say. But it’s not is it.

He then continues with this. Make of it what you can; an incoherent rant or a clever and cynical way to cultivate ambiguity. If anyone can actually break this down - sentence by sentence - into a rational argument I am willing to try to make sense of it. Maybe the guy's a genius!

Guns are shorthand for something else, like Islam, both more about the ‘other’. More importantly, guns and the mode of murder-suicide are small details. do you think the media give a f*ck about dead children? No, they’re just ammunition. No, the real issue is the one that gets the least airtime, the least print, the one of mental health, the question the impact of medication, corrupted and unreformed belief systems, an atomised insane society that breads killers, issues far harder to compress into hip little anti this or anti that videos on Facebook.

An easy sell for the ill informed and one I'd disagree with.

There are over 1.8 million legal, privately owned guns in the UK. They are used in a vanishingly small number of crimes.

What charming naivety.  Or wilful ignorance.

I interpret his argument that you quote as being that he takes a view that he thinks is a simplistic response to a complex problem, (ban all guns), but which he thinks most in the UK agree with as they haven't thought it through in a wider context and then compares it with a view that he also thinks is a simplistic response to a complex problem (ban Islam ) which most in the UK don't agree with as they have thought it through.

I think the point he is trying to make is that the issues surrounding gun ownership in the USA are much more complex than we in the UK understand and cannot be solved with a simple ban in the same way that suicide bombing is a far more complex issue than particular religious beliefs and cannot be solved by banning a particular religion .

Thank you very much for your explanation Roger. It is by far the clearest explanation of an alternative reality that I have read so far.

However, to accept it, you must be fully confident that Andrew Kirkpatrick does not harbor any anti-Islamic sentiment. Based on other posts of his that I have read, I don't feel I can make that assumption. However, I have only been following Andrew for a few weeks, which is why in my second post of this thread I wrote: "I'm maybe not fluent with Andy Kirkpatrick rational."

Perhaps those that have followed him for a long time can vouch for his tolerance of Islam and his acceptance of the Muslim community. If so, I will gladly accept that his post was not Islamophobic.

Well put  

To be clear, I can understand perfectly well how an extreme interpretation of Islam can be used to justify killing someone. However, Andrew didn't compare Islam with another belief system, he compared it with a gun. Guns are not a justification for killing someone, but a means. The mechanics of death by firearm are easy to grasp. Death by Islam is simply nonsensical.

You are beginning to labour your point.

Rather than inspecting the entrails in this way, and trying to use this forum as a judge and jury, have you considered asking the author directly?

I may be completely misreading the post but I took it to mean that banning all guns was as reasonable as suggesting the banning of islam based on the same stupid misconception that they both kill people.

In other words he seems to support the NRA's position. That, I disapprove of.

Could you please clarify what you mean by 'Islamophobia'?

Fear or dislike of Islam, or fear or dislike of Muslims? These are quite different things, and I have no problem at all with the former; indeed, I dislike all religions to some extent.

And to qualify as a phobia, does it have to be intense? Or irrational? It isn't clear from the excerpt above that it's either, in this case.

For clarity: it seems to me that while prejudice against people who happen to be Islamic is a bad thing (and we should do what we can to reduce that or stamp it out), dislike of Islam can be an entirely rational and decent stance.

I'm simply replying to other people. Someone else criticized me for not engaging enough! You can't please all the people etc...

I'm sure Andrew is aware of this thread. He seems very media savvy. I agree, it would be great to have some input from him.

I'm with you; not at all keen on religion. However Andy admits to being increasingly interested in god, and particularly Christianity. He puts this down to living in Ireland. So given his acceptance of religion as a valid concept, I would say either of those definitions could be seen as being intolerant.

I'm no expert on phobias. However, I'm quite happy going with the Wikipedia definition of Islamophobia.

It seems to me that he is saying that most shootings/ suicide bombings are being carried out by people with serious mental health issues (diagnosed or not I can agree that there is something not right if someone is driven to killing, particularly on that scale. Did you see his GDPR email, it's about the only one which has made me laugh!

My reading of this is that AK is pointing out that both guns and Islam are misused and that we shouldn't let the misuse affect any decision to ban or curtail the use of guns etc. I agree that his piece isn't crystal clear and, for the record, whilst I agree with him that these issues are often more complex than the media's reaction allows for, I would say that his analogy is less than helpful.

I was merely asking a question in light of your question and putting forward a possible explanation, so don't be having a go at me.

Perhaps if you addressed Andy through his website he might be able to clear it up for you.

I think you've got it sussed Dom.

First paragraph should of been in quotes - was replying in agreement to stu7jokes. 

The point of the AK piece if there is one, is that if we want to solve the great problems of our age, maybe even of life, it might be a good idea to get out of our echo chambers or ideological silos and speak to people who hold different views.

Ambiguities are part and parcel of any discourse and we shouldn't be afraid of them now we are all grown up, indeed they may often open up solutions to what seemed like intractable  black and white or partisan issues. 

The 'influencer' post I thought was a darkly irreverent self depriciation of the futily of his furrowed brow missives when twenty year attractive buxom women have hundreds and thousands of 'followers' and describe themselves in their blurb as ''influencers" which normal means they've been paid to hawk some product.

Could you be a very pleasant right wing person? 

People first, politics and the rest of it down the road. Belonging to some self affirming congratulatory club of like minded individuals isn't going to save the planet.

Warm Regards

D.

Why are you white knighting for 'Islam'? It has plenty of resources to do that itself

Curious. Indifferent personally. 

Is it since rascism is the grand capital crime of the age that any sniff of intolerance or god help us ambiguity in an individuals recital of the Big Fluffy Book of Rainbow Children demands instant social pariah status and forced removal and shipping off to the salt mines?

D

Edited for sausage fingers.

I'm not white-knighting for Islam, I'm exposing an Islamophobic (Wikipedia definition) post from one of the UK's best-known climbers. I'm saying that his conflating a belief system (Islam) with a means of killing (guns) is disingenuous and dangerous, and can only encourage the growing number of people in the UK who are prejudiced against Muslims. Might I just point out that the post with the most 'likes' in this thread is Nick Brown's (16.23 Sat). Nick is of the exact same opinion as me, which I think is a good illustration of how confused people are about this whole issue (my posts have been overwhelmingly disliked). I suspect sowing confusion is one of the aims of Andy's original post. It's been an outstanding success!

I think it's better when it comes from outside religion. Otherwise there can always be a suspicion of bias (ref. your first sentence).

No it's that intolerance engenders persecution. Age old problem which never ends well.

Edit as I've just seen your previous post: Please do not confuse ambiguity with doubt, uncertainty or even contradiction. It's a technique used to sow confusion, not a concept.

I'm out.

There's plenty of voices on the '''right" and otherwise non politicslly aligned chemotactic micro cephalic simpletons who talk of banning Muslims, expressions of islam and or exporting Muslims whenever there is another atrocity performed in the name of Allah, PBAH. The right wing media here in the u.k. is somewhat quiet these days on the on thisthis , but you find plenty of it in the u.s  media and across the social media spectrum.

Ditto calls for gun bans whenever an incel or an incel postman flips out in the states, yeah 99% are enraged, marginal and unlayed young men, something in common with the Muslim terrorist issue, you'd maybe think? 

You speak of the wages  of 'intolerance' when defending one of the most, if not the most intolerant, repressive and reactionary social/ political contemporary human endevours to wind itself around the globe with no irony, or is that an ambiguity? Tolerant of intolerance? 

I've switched plenty of Muslim friends or colleagues off from my Facebook feed for posting Koran enchanted drivel about homosexuality, polygamy, shariah and the righteous path of turning off your brain and following the good book. Ditto born again Christians. 

Which century broheim? 

Plenty of confusion I will agree.

Anyhoo - enjoy the lovely evening and I wish you every success in ridding the world of intolerance.

Best Wishes

D.

Someone was using him as a stick to beat me with a few months back, to suggest real men who climb and who've seen the world and read books get that weird American mix of laisez faire libertarian and hawkish authoritarian thinking because it's logical, inevitable even, people who don't get it are wet, naive or uneducated. It was a stupid argument but apparently people like their heroes, even more so if they happen to think alike. I can't say his talent for documenting his suffering on climbs or his political arguments persuade me to follow him on his latest journey.

jk

It sounds like you want agreement with your point of view, rather than a discussion.

What do you mean? In India (for example) it's people from a range of faiths who kill people of other faiths of related reasons. 

That seems rather belittling of you.

I support him because he's right - and he's a top bloke -  Simple

Kick up a bit of controversy and some numbty will run with it.
Generates a shed load more of site visits for him! More cash

Well I always have my prosthetic conscience to remind me....

Yes, that's how I read it as well.

I've noticed with alot of Andy's posts that they are often written in a way that's easy to misinterpret, and come away thinking the opposite of what hes trying to get across. 

I don't know if that's deliberate tactic, or a combination of his style of writing, his dyslexia, and his left-field way of thinking.

Importantly, for me anyway, reading his stuff does actually make me question things, whether that's his interpretation of something, my understanding or lack of etc, so I'll keep at it.

The internet (and society in general) can be a terrible echo chamber, and you can do nothing but reinforce your own ever narrowing view point, unless you open yourself to others (questionable or not).

Thats my two pence anyway.

Nah you don't, I just didn't want to be thought of as saying untruths elsewhere.

I've got more interesting things to do, and you'd probably get tired of it. too.

Yes, that's why these forums are cool.   

There are lots of people on this forum who are either unable or unwilling to understand what is actually being said.  There are also many others who relish the prospect of being offended at the slightest thing.  Then there are those that only want to shut down debate because what is being said is does not fit their agenda .  All of these things added together make UKC and forums in general a very poor place to have such discussions.

Al

Do you follow Andy on Instagram? His posts are probably 90 to 95% politics/culture using other people's photos (not sure if they are creative commons licenced or not). And this one is one of his less controversial ones of late. The thing is Andy doesn't really debate with anyone who comments, he just asserts you're wrong and don't understand in the way he does (he has freed himself from the matrix).

I stopped following him on everything after he posted a picture of the Boston bombing pavement scenes with no context whatsoever.

I stopped checking out his blog after he stopped being entertaining and started being more up his own arse with his philosophical diatribe.  

Yep, the content of his account is near enough identical of an acquaintance on Facebook who appears to have purchased an off-the-peg alt-right starter set of opinions and who is similarly a master of adding just enough vagueness to each post to make outright accusations of bigotry difficult. When viewed as a body of work, there is no ambiguity as to what the guy's sentiments are.

Well you are right in one respect. Its a hard read, lots of sentences stuck together, which on the face of it make some sense, but actually don't gel.  He shares something with Donald Trump it seems

Strange really, as his books more descriptive passages effectively distill things down to the real essentials - leaving out all that was unnecessary and making every word count for something. 

Maybe his book editor is worth their salt. 

Lolz. Where does one purchase such a started kit do you reckon?

I think they're on offer for a free trial period all over certain bits of the internet these days.

'Guns' is shorthand for rednecks called Cleetus who live in trailers adorned with confederate flags, think the government is run by Jews, don't like black people and vote for Trump.

'Islam' is shorthand for nutcases who want to enslave or kill the Kufirs, live in bedsits adorned with black flags with squiggly white writing, think the government is run by..er..Jews, don't like people who aren't Muslim and would vote for IS if that option was available at election time.

Both are crude stereotypes that fit the narrative people want to portray, both apply to a very small percentage of gun owners /muslims.

Er, I'll take a stab at the media love a good massacre and manufacturing outrage. It doesn't matter if the dead are children killed by a suicide bomber or someone with an AR 15 bought from Wallmart.

Both result in knee jerk responses, a media and political feeding frenzy and calls for simply banning things people don't understand or care about.

The issue isn't simply 'guns' or 'Islam', it's the corrosive effects of a host of things that cause isolated, confused individuals with no direction in life to focus on their own narcissism, ego and grudges. This makes them open to being seduced by martydom or to kill innocents in the hope the whole world will know their name.

Dealing with these issues is far too complex and difficult, so lets just ban something to appear we're dealing with the issue.

Or something like that.

A comment on 'slacktivism', using social media to make it seem your ideas are important, thinking giving something a 'share' or 'like' on facebook will bring about change.

I don't follow Andy K, (or really anyone else for that matter) on twitter. I might be completely wrong and he really does polish his jackboots while listening to Skrewdriver, but I din't get that from the excerpt you posted.

Well done Ridge, I think AK needs to employ you as his press secretary!

I don't think he does anything on Twitter - its all on instagram, which I've always thought is odd because most people use it on their phones and can't be arsed getting into long debates because they are typing with one thumb. I do wonder if Andy types out his missives on a lap top then sends the text over to his phone to use.

I don't think so either, I reckon it's uncleaned approach shoes and a Jordan Peterson lecture on youtube as background.

Therein lies the advantage of Instagram; most of one's antagonists get filtered out. Free pass for ranting validated by the absence of challenge.

I can't claim ownership of this opinion, but I heard a view put forward the other day which I quite liked and which somewhat went against (and with) what you wrote here.

Essentially the media was being maligned for only reporting sensational bad news - essentially manufacturing it.  The interviewee put forward the view instead that this is the media's job.  That 99.9% of what happens on a daily basis is everyone getting along, everything functioning, society resolving its own issues without need for any/much intervention. 

What is newsworthy is when that smooth motion of the cogs breaks down - what goes on at the fringes where the conflict happens, when the scandal happens, when people harm each other, basically when the 0.1% kicks off.

Made the point that its not really the fault of the newspapers that they report sensational extreme stuff.  They're not manufacturing outrage so much as reporting what really is news - it is the stuff that goes against the grain that is noteworthy on account of its rarity.  The fault lies with the average reader who forgets this.

Anyway, I digress...

Is it possible that Andy's mental health isn't that great? And if it isn't, is it possible that this post might not be that appropriate?

I have nothing to support this, but he wouldn't be the 1st "celebrity" to suffer a mental health issue.

Perhaps someone who knows him should confirm that he is fine before we continue to berate his communications.

Not exclusively, for many guns is shorthand for guns and the chaos they cause/facilitate that other nations don't suffer. The country is awash with them, they're used to resolve the sort of stupid disputes that elsewhere would result in harsh words and sulking or a thump. They're used by toddlers by accident, the fear they instil justifies the horrific and corrosive volume of police shootings, they're used to settle playground disputes and as a terminal replacement for therapy. Among many other issues America has a very serious gun problem that cannot ever be resolved without moving significantly on gun control which isn't to say gun control alone will fix the problem.

The false equivalence with Islam isn't a clever rhetorical tool*, it's just 'alt right' shit stirring delivered somewhat deniably. That it finds so many here willing to make excuses or openly declare support is a problem we have yet to face.

*I appreciate you're not making that argument, this bit is a response to the thread more broadly

jk

Isn't this just another "never meet your heroes" story for some on here? AK is just a climber who has managed to carve out a social media following by doing some gnarly climbs in the cold on his own in the hope of earning some cash from his hobby. I don't think his views are that controversial in the context of how plenty of people feel about Islam, Muslims and their impact on Western society (however misplaced). Why do we hold AK to a higher standard? Why should he "know better"? Why are people wondering if his mental health is ok? It's just some musings on some very difficult issues by a bloke who doesn't claim to be an expert, but climbs as far as I can tell, all this analysis seems a bit ridiculous and over the top to me.

I don't and there's no reason at all that he should 'know better'. He does however have something of a platform from which he can evangelise so it's reasonable for those who disagree with him to challenge his ideas. He's not just the local pub bore.

Presumably because he seems to have undergone a pretty significant and rapid shift in his outlook. I don't know the guy or follow his output, I'm only going from snippets of his that were pushed my way a while back but he seemed from those to be someone grasping for something. Something he seems to have found or something has found him.

As I see it it's not him at the heart of this, he's just another guy with a voice who found 'religion'.

jk

He does mention mental health in the article being discussed so it's not too much of a leap.

Actually, if you follow Andy and have read these insta posts and some blog posts for some time, while not using the word expert, he is very firm that he understands everything (he has "stepped outside the matrix") and people who don't agree with him either don't understand or are too "small" or self-interested to join him in the stark and at times brutal uplands of the enlightened. 

Andy K's rants might not be revolutionary or edgy as he sees them, but I think he gets that view from all the people taking a word or part of a sentence out of context and post things like this in response. At least you posted the whole text, but it's clearly "religionphobic" rather than "islamophobic" (meaning: "corrupted and unreformed belief systems", plural). It seems you also just play into what he says the "other side" says by overreacting and labeling him in this way.

And that vagueness is entirely on purpose. Guarantee you he’d use the same one religion as his example of religiosity 99 times out of 100.

Baffling. Which other religions are stereotyped as causing atrocity, mentioned by name or indeed even merely hinted at?

jk

I think the enlightened, are people like myself who ignore Twitter, Instagram and Facebook and only speak nonsense to mates, face to face, usually over a beer. As such, my blood pressure and stress levels are just where I like them, simmering away just above absolute zero

Hmmm, not so sure. Which country do you think the slogan that goes with this shot is referring to? https://www.instagram.com/p/BisCb7UjFEY/?hl=en (from about a week ago)

That's a good image.  

JP is sometimes quite logical, and then questions the idea of white privilege in a society where white people are the majority race (the opposite can apply in Taiwan, regarding anti white racism, so it wouldn't be an unexpected thing). He's a funny one.

Just reading a few of Andy K's instagram posts to try and gain some context for the original article and the fourth one I can across was:-

"As ever I’ve had some feedback that I’m not qualified to write social commentary, being a ‘just a climber’, leaving such things to the qualified, people with social tenure, comedians like Frankie Boyle, rappers or North London newspaper columnists. Another criticism I also get is that I’m getting above my station, coming from the working class I guess, that people don’t like being talked down to, giving the impression I know something they don’t. What this actually means is keep your mouth shut unless your thoughts conform to your place and are stamped and validated, that people don’t like their bubble pricked by pricks like me. Well if I was to write that 60% of all gun deaths in the US are caused by suicide, supporting my earlier point that we have a mental health problem, not a gun problem, am I making a point no one makes in the mainstream, or am I just forgetting my place?"

So ignoring the rant at the start about "knowing ones place" we do have a more focused point about mental health issues and anti gun campaigns in his view missing the point.

That's quite interesting. I guess that 60% of gun deaths being from suicide, doesn't stop Americans being more likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun than a terrorist, kind of of worrying, too.

Thanks Ridge, great post. You interpreted Andy's words with mucho humor! I'm afraid my attempt is going to be drier and more cynical, but hopefully no less insightful!

You have interpreted Andy's 'other' as referring to "crude stereotypes" that only apply to a “small percentage” of each group and, but Andy himself gives no hint of that. His 'other' may well be ‘all gun-owners’ and ‘all Muslims’.

Having read a fair bit of Andy’s work, I suspect associating guns with rednecks is what he imagines most Brits do, whereas associating Islam with extremists is his own natural tendency. He seems to be saying: ‘You think I’m a bad person because I’m prejudiced against Islam, but your prejudice against guns is just as bad. We both have our ‘other’.”

Personally, I don’t solely associate guns with a violent breed of red-neck, I also associate them with my hunting and range-shooting friends, with squaddies and airport police, IDF snipers, hillbillies, anti-terror teams, James Bond and polar explorers.

Guns are weapons which make killing very quick and easy. This is why I think ownership should be regulated. How can you reasonably draw a parallel between that and banning a faith?

Ergo, Andy Kirkpatrick’s post is Islamophobic.

Andy has a valid point here, but he simplifies and sensationalizes it for his followers. 

News organizations are business. They may have an agenda to influence public opinion, but mostly they exist to make money. As such they give the people what they want to hear. Not pretty for Daily Mail readers, I agree!

Mental health is massive in the UK media. People want to read about depression, obsessive behaviors, compulsion, addiction, suicide, anxiety... This stuff talks to everyone.

And after a shooting, people don't care much about the kind of gun used, or the type of bullets. They’re also much less interested in the victims than the killer. There is a desperate scramble by the media to find out who the killer is and what the motives were. People are fascinated by the personalities of people who do horrible things. So, I say that Andy is quite simply wrong here.

- the question the impact of medication

I actually agree with Andy on this one, at least to a certain extent

"Corrupt and unreformed belief system" is, of course, another stab at Islam. The vast majority of Muslims have no desire to live in a caliphate run by zealots according to Koranic law.

"An atomised insane society that breeds killers".

Readers that have got this far, please think about your day, think about your yesterday, your last week, last year. Is this sentence a realistic reflection of your world! Thought not, but Andrew just can't resist hyperbole. He takes isolated incidents and makes them sound like normality –  the fans love it!

I'm speculating here, but I can't help feeling that Andy searches out those hip-little-anti-videos just so that he can get worked up about them! The internet lets you access thousands of media outlets worldwide. Most of it isn’t ‘hip’.

Andy’s logic is often deeply flawed (ban guns/ban Islam), but his ambiguity is masterful. It serves a purpose as long as people are fully aware of how it operates. Taking it at face value tricks some people into making very sweeping and dangerous conclusions (eg. “Islam is used to kill people”)

Putting this post in the context of all his other posts and comments, I can't help thinking that Andy harbors a nasty streak of intolerance which he would love to see become more commonplace. Despite the edgy rhetoric, he’s really looking for acceptance. But only on his terms.

Of course there is a mental health problem for the 60% of suicides, as well as a massive gun control problem. If someone has a bad night and there is a gun involved the liklihood of that person surviving the night is much reduced compared to a knife for example. 

People have jumped off bridges to later change their mind and enter the water in a way that doesn't quite kill them. 

People have taken paracetomol to later get to hospital where they can have their stomach pumped but can also receive mental care. 

Also, 40% of a large number is still a huge problem. If 40% of road traffic accidents were caused by a certain factor that factor would certainly be reviewed and heavily controlled. It's taken one devasting fire and the deaths of hundreds to review fire regulations but gun control is a special case despite killing tens of thousands every year. 

Very well articulated! Do you think this problem is spreading through UK society as a whole?

   Read the thing more carefully. In summary "calling for banning guns is ridiculous, about as ridiculous as calling for a ban on Islam"

His logic is that obviously Islam doesn't cause deaths, people do, usually mentally ill people, and that the same is true of guns so neither should be banned.

You may disagree with the latter argument (the bit on guns) but to construe the point as islamophobic when it is just the opposite beggars belief.

The argument for banning guns is nothing to do with mental health. It's because guns provide an easy and quick way to kill people. If they are at hand, then mentally ill people can get hold of them easily. The desire to commit suicide, or kill someone is often fleeting. If you have a gun in your basement, or in your glove compartment you can act on it in that very moment. If you have to apply for a licence first, you're much less likely to go through with it.

How can you compare that with banning a religion?

Maybe he was being figurative as opposed to literal?

  It may well be a crap comparison but your headline was that it was an "Islamophobic post" not that is was a "crap argument about guns and mental health".

But even figuratively? For a comparison to work there has to be a common thread. Easily accessible guns facilitate the killing of lots of people at any given moment. How can a religion do that?

And his crap comparison just happened to involve Islam, a religion he has been vehemently critical of for some time. Christianity, on the other hand, he has a new-found affection for. I stand by my headline!

The irony

The only nasty intolerance I've seen on this thread is from those questioning the wisdom of his sponsors and calling for a boycott of his lectures.

Really? Days into this thread and many and various answers to this same question and your still asking how religion can facilitate the killing of lots of people at the same moment?

Pick up a history book FFS.

<blushes>

I didn't read it that way, I thought the point he was making was that other people did the 'othering', depending on their viewpoint.

I've not read his work, so you may be right. However in the excerpt you posted he didn't acknowledge a prejudice against Islam and use prejudice against guns to justify it. (Or I haven't read it right).

Same here, but that view is, in my opinion, quite commonplace.

Absolutely agree on gun ownership. However regulation isn't banning, it's restricting access (that said banning is applied to unjustifiable weapons like full auto etc). Personally I'd like to see all religions heavily regulated to prevent indoctrination in schools and abuse. Are there parallels to be drawn there?

Again, not read his other stuff so can't form an opinion on that one post.

Agree again, but pandering to the lowest common denominator, which is what a loss of mass media in the uk does, is irresponsible.

I don't think it's handled all that well. Lots of prurient, exploitative and voyeuristic stuff on TV that seems more Victorian freak show than in depth analysis and an attempt to understand and destigmatise mental health issues.

I really have a problem with this focus on the killer and his motivations. I take the Billy Connoley view - the media should just refer to them as "Some wanker". People like to film dead and injured people on their phones and watch beheading videos. That doesn't mean we should pander to it.

The excerpt said 'systems', but I suspect you're right that it was aimed at Islam.

Just like the mainstream media

Don't we all?

Again, I'd have to read his other stuff to reach that conclusion.

Some people believe he's being literal and some believe he isn't.
You obviously believe that he is being literal and have carried out an exhaustive attack on him accordingly.
To echo what I said earlier in the thread - have you joined UKC with an agenda?
Even if you haven't, don't you think for transparency that you should stand by your convictions and post under your real name*? 

*I post anonymously, but don't instigate character assassinations of well known climbers. If I felt the need to, I would then declare who I was.
As an example, Alan James has posted an open thread criticising Gary Gibson and that is the correct way to do it - Gibson knows full well who is criticising him and can therefore reply either openly on the thread, or to Alan James privately. 
 

My old man was on the independent monitoring board for his local prison.  His conversations with the prison Iman about the radicalisation going on in the prisons the Iman served were very worrying. At least parents can pull a child out of RE classes and their child isn’t subject to threats of violence over religion.  As anti indoctrination as I am this made me realise just how important it is for the state to fund decent, rational representatives of all relevant faiths to the prison system.

I post this an an unashamed religionaphobe.  For the OPs clarification - my dislike of the privileges granted to organised religion - and the general history and current actions of many different organised religions - does not spread to discriminating against individuals because of their faith.

Another great post! I honestly didn't remove the -s from belief systems on purpose, it was a copy/paste error (blushes!).

In reply to Stu7jokes:

the irony

Ironical indeed!

On the other hand I didn't call for the boycott of AK.  I asked two questions, neither of which have been answered (I like my communication to be clear rather than ambiguous. The words are what they mean!)

I wasn't expecting a debate about whether his post is Islamophobic. I was expecting people to say that they support him because they do not believe in censorship. I am happy to accept this (although there is obviously an argument for restricting hate-inciting speech). This was the debate I was looking for. It's actually turned out to be more interesting!

It seems that his shows are much less controversial than his writing, and people go there to be entertained rather than challenged. If I'm going to pay good money just to be entertained, then it's a perfectly valid choice not to give that money to someone who I think promotes intolerance. I wouldn't go to a Tommy Robinson comedy show either.

Because you are not actually reading what he wrote.

Yes. How, in a moment of rage and insanity, do you pick up a religion and start killing people with it? Still haven't had an answer, just lots of irrelevant stuff about mental illness.

he just seems to be venting about the importance that is given to certain issues that are derived from deeper cultural issues and how they are avoided by the press.

nothing islamaphobic in this post, if you think that then you clearly can't read and think at the same time and are a little stupid

You'd think Andy might show up to give an account of himself? I'm beginning to think he's some form of intellectual arsonist - setting our prejudices alight - then cackling from a distance as we beat the crap out of each other in an attempt to quell the flames.

Maybe sharpening his lawyers? Do you need to show loss of earnings for a libel/slander case or is it just the act of defamation?

The relevance of your questions is dependant upon whether your view that his post is Islamaphobic is accurate.

Having reread his post, and yours, several times I can't agree with you. I think you have misinterpreted what he has said and attributed sinister motivation and meaning to a clumsily put argument that is intended to make another point entirely.

I may be wrong but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. 

Really? Since your entire argument is based on an interpretation of AK's rather rambling and incoherent post, it was inevitable that people would question your interpretation. They are not blindly going to accept your interpretation.

If I were in AK's position, I'd take more care to be more clear in what I posted. But either he prefers a 'stream of consciousness' approach, or he deliberately posts obtuse prose. Or maybe he's just bad at writing; I don't know.

There's loads of heated opinions (above) but I don't think anyone's said anything libellous have they?

Unfounded accusations of islamaphobia ticks the "action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation" box...

Since when was a person's level of English comprehension a reflection of whether they're 'stupid'? 

Well for the record, I don't think AK is islamophobic but in the same breath I question why he feels it necessary to provoke such controversial discourse.

I'd like to think the OP (and others) shouldn't have anything to worry about as their hearts seem to be in the right place

It's almost as if you think controversial discourse is a bad thing.

Others said it more clearly.

Go see who you like. But the Tommy Robinson comparison is striking, given your keen eye for imperfect analogies.

A figurative comparison can only work if a direct one is not available. Andrew could have directly compared guns to suicide vests, but he chose to bypass this and use Islam instead. This suggests he has an agenda, and that agenda is Islamophobic.

My Tommy Robinson comparison works because they are both manipulative people, using ambiguous rhetoric, and isolated examples to push an alt-right agenda.

If his other posts demonstrated tolerance I would, like Roger and Ridge, give him the benefit of the doubt. However this is not the case.

Anyway, off on a climbing trip now, so will to leave it there! It's been an interesting conversation, but concerning too. I think people should be very wary of Andrew Kirkpatrick's writing style and motives. His ambiguity is deliberate, not clumsy (he has said as much).

I think it would help if we knew who you are, where you live and what you do. We know all these things about Andy, therefore can have some idea of how his opinions are shaped. However we know nothing of you. Islam is a hugely divisive issue in our country with people having very different perceptions depending on where they live and work, with little or know understanding of the others perspective . Someone who lives in or near Audley Range in Blackburn will have very different perspective of Islam to someone who lives in Thirsk.

Some fascinating facts here https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/05/19/britains-rural-muslims-are-a-m... ie; in circa 45% of parishes there are no muslims, whereas 50% of UK muslims live in London, Birmingham and Bradford. Therefore people in different parts of the UK will have  very different perceptions. Also people lie about how they feel about things. Listen to this, all the way through, there is a bit at the end about how people think about muslims and how those thoughts can quite easily be shaped. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/big-penis-things-ask-google/ (The Podcast has a rude name, but its work safe)

I am anonymous on here, but plenty know who I am, I am easy to find. However I am not making a personal attack on another person, a member of our community, that could impact their livelihood, which you are, so I feel it unfair that you are anonymous, rather snidey in fact.

The nature of clumsiness is that it doesn't really matter what Andy had in mind, it will turn out not as intended. I don't buy the master manipulator argument and stick with the interpretation that seemed obvious when I first read the post, that he was suggesting that banning guns was as silly as banning Islam.

Nazism

Nazism (or communism) was an ideology professed by milions. Does it make it inviolable?

Andy has right to express his opinion as anyone else and I am glad there are still some companies like Montane that respect it

I’d not use the word “conversation” for one poster repeating ad nauseam their - by number of posters - very unsusual interpretation of a tangent of a rambling blog post, and their insinuation that the person, by their interpretation, is nasty because ther tangent falls under one part of a Wikipedia definition, another part of which (not covered by their interpretation) is considered unacceptable by most people - including I am sure all posters here.

It’s as if you hope that by repeating your allegations against a public figure that they will gain traction.  I started off giving you the benefit of the doubt but it’s fade fast.  I find something unsavoury in an unyielding anonymous attack on someone who has the character to put their name to their views.

Could be. I prefer not to make assumptions though.

Bollocks. Andy Kirkpatrick is at great pains to tell us of his lack of naivety, so using his well followed social media account to post about controversial topics unrelated to his profession are his choice and fair game for criticism. Without allowing criticism it's just an unsolicited political broadcast.

That seems like just an assumption without evidence to back it up.

None. That doesn't mean we can assume he thinks other religions never do anything wrong. Without more evidence all we can do is interpret the text we have here. Seems silly to be offended about something you have no proof is actually being said.

As opposed to your post that I was replying to, which just replaced words that AK had actually written with what you reckoned he meant?

My mistake, when you said "it's clearly..." I assumed that you were making an assessment of what he meant based on what he'd said, covering something I may have missed rather than simply guessing at other thoughts he may or may not have had but but either way hadn't bothered to articulate.

Incidentally I'm not offended by what he wrote. I wouldn't have written it, I disagree with the thrust of it and the rhetorical tools chosen, I also think both the quote and the flurry of excuses/support for it above fit a worrying pattern but that's not quite the same thing as being offended.

jk

Yes, that is an interpretation of what he meant based on the text he wrote, not an assumption of what he meant which you don't base on the text itself. What I'm trying to say is that it's fine to claim he's islamophobic, just find some proof to claim it rather than just assume it.

And if you scroll further up the thread you'll see my opinion is based on AK's output in its entirety, rather than just taking this single post in isolation.

I think your interpretation of Andys post is confused at best and your response to question his sponsorship dangerous and irresponsible given your label as a UKC professional. 

In recent months Andy has said that he believes slavery was a choice for African Americans, he has said that women need to accept and put up with being wolf whistled and whilst this isn’t perhaps a clear cut case of Islamaphobia, the rhetoric is dangerous.

Andy seems to be a very confused individual who uses his public platform to spout this nonsense. As someone pointed out recently, I wonder if he’s in the middle of some performance art?

Did he actually say those things, or is that an interpretation like has happened to this post?  Links?

AK on Instagram

"Power grinds up the bones of history, sifts it for only the binary particles and calls it ‘answers’.

_____

Kayne understands this, and yes, he’s right, slavery is a choice, something Chinese American’s - whose history is equally as dark - realised long ago (name me a high profile Chinese ‘community organizer’). Kayne’s position, as one of the most famous black men in the world, is very dangerous, to the modern day masters, who think blacks should know their place, know ‘their’ history. He is a danger to those whose power base is ignorance and mental slavery, a modern-day Sengbe Pieh. And so, like any dangerous black man, he will be whipped, mocked, called an ‘uncle tom’, shamed, derided, coerced, until he either disappears or slips back on his shackles and returns to the field to slave for power.

—

So laugh away at this foolish man."

Reads to me like gibberish

I can't comment on your other allegations as I haven't read the source material.  I am very skeptical of your opinion given your interpretation of the original post.

I find it incredible as an official representitive of UKC you are publicly discrediting and defaming an other professional in your industry and potentially damaging his livelihood.  

I am amazed the title of this thread has not been censored given its misleading and unsubstantiated content. 

He seems to be saying slavery is a choice, not slavery is a choice for black people (only).  Gibberish though, agreed.  Take it this is on the back of Kanye West similarly spouting gibberish.

I know I said I'd drop this, but it's only just occurred to me that a lot of people on here think I concluded from Andrew Kirkpatrick's post that he wants to literally ban Islam. This is so obviously not the case that I didn't think it needed mentioning.

However, Andrew ignored a perfectly good direct parallel between guns and suicide vests to draw a highly dubious one between guns and Islam. This either makes him unable to reason properly, or it suggests an Islamophobic agenda. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and went for the latter, especially given his previous work.

Guns and suicide vests are not a perfectly good direct parallel. Guns can be legally purchased, owned and used for lawful purposes. AFAIK assembling a gilet with a semtex and ball bearing lining will get you arrested and put in jail.

Therefore "if you want to ban guns why not ban suicide vests/crack cocaine/paedophilia" just doesn't work, it's even more confused than the original instagram post, as the last three are already banned.

It's not a good parallel at all though.  Suicide vests kill the user, they're not used for recreation,  and they aren't kept for defence.  They're not comparable to guns.

Do you have the potential to be an alt-right or Islamist influencer? Do this simple exercise to find out.

Put these words into suitable categories:

zombie knife...Islam...Judaism...gun...suicide vest...Christianity.

If you got the following:

Zombie knife, gun, suicide vest = weapons
Islam, Judaism, Christianity = religions

Congratulations, you are a normal, balanced human being!

If you got this:

Guns, Islam = ways to kill people

...or any other combination, you are a seriously confused individual who will probably succeed best in life as a terrorist or whacko influencer.

How about:

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, extremism political ideology = potential initiators for violence in unbalanced individuals;

Zombie knife, gun, suicide vest = means to achieve that violence.

There's probably a venn diagram in there somewhere, but the categories aren't as unrelated as you seem to think.

Congratulations, you're a normal, balanced human being!

A bit of an aside, and an observation rather than islamaphobic I hope...

Not sure if anyone on here has watched Fauda on Netflix? It's an Israeli TV show which has won plaudits for it's realism and fairness in depicting an secret underground Israeli hit team targeting Hamas terrorists.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/may/23/the-next-homeland-prob...

I started watching series 2 yesterday (it's pretty good) and it is really striking how Arabs speak to each other (assuming the dialogue is accurate and realistic). Pretty much any interaction  or greeting they have which each other is finished or interspersed with "blessed be to god" or "god willing" or "praise allah" or "if allah wishes it" etc. etc....you get the picture. Basically 50% of everything they say is a reference to their god. It's really quite striking. I wonder if it's just a learned habit they develop from hearing it so much , or they really believe what they are saying will make a difference? Comes across incredibly insecure to someone who isn't religious. (a normal balanced human being?

“assuming”... wtf do you think?

I’ll bet Leni Riefenstahl did it better.

I'm assuming it is accurate is what the fck I think

If they made a show set in East london, i doubt it would be all apples and pairs me old china...

So everything on Israeli TV is automatically zionist propaganda?

Doesn't have to be propaganda to be stereotypical.

That would depend if they wanted to portray a certain stereotype, whoever the hell ‘they’ are.

Good point.

"They" would be the people who make the show. "They" also used Palestinian actors. But if it is as you say, just Israeli propaganda to make the Palestinians look like totally brainwashed religious fanatics rather than a fair reflection on how they speak, then i'm curious as to why that's not where the criticism of the shows authenticity has fallen? Puzzling.

Incidentally, did you enjoy the show?

Never heard of it. I wouldn’t watch it if you paid me. 

"Never heard of it. I wouldn’t watch it if you paid me."

I see. Do you have any other strong opinions on shows you haven't seen? 

A certain Brass Eye special springs to mind as a likely candidate...

I'd have thought that it was blindingly obvious that I was questioning your assumption above all else, but do carry on.

You are stating the obvious, but, missing the point.

The only way you can accept this argument as anything other than a syllogism , is if you accept the idea that "Islam" is comparable to "a gun".

Given that a gun is a weapon designed to kill, and Islam a religion, the comparison he makes implies that he thinks that this is also the case of Islam. Or that he thinks a gun is a faith, which wouldnt make sense.

You might not want to believe Nick but I can vouch for everything he has said. I wouldn't wish anyone an evening trawling through Kirkpatrick's social media accounts but it's all there.

I'd defend Kirkpatrick's right to say all of this. Montane are free to sponsor him but I will not be buying anything from them whilst they do. It's an odd decision on their part, they make good kit but have no USP and or killer app., which makes them rather vulnerable to sentiment like mine. It's easy to choose a different brand: Mountain Equipment, or Rab perhaps, who make near-identical products but associate themselves with that nice Mr Macleod or Mme Dufraisse.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

These threads usually contain posts from folk claiming originality or freshness for AK's thoughts. Lucky people, they can't have spent much time in the online alt. right world where his dark materials are ten-a-penny. The sources were more transparent when he was retweeting this shit. The ambiguity on instagram allows him a little plausible deniability.

 Utterly and completely missed the point. Yawn....

No, right on the mark, and right on point. 

Several other posters have made exactly same point, because it is bleeding obvious, but never mind.

Frankly, arguing that comparing Islam with a weapon of death is not islamophobic is just a bit ridiculous. 

Lol, you probably also missed the point the other posters were making, which in many cases was the same as mine. Never mind Rom. Can I lend you a spade?

No, I didn't miss it, it just that it is rather irrelevant, and in fact deliberately construed so as to sidestep the criticism that was made of Andy K's duplicitous rethorical "trick".

Keep your (now very blunt) spade, you might need it.

no doubt this will all be revisited in a  few months

  You obviously wouldn't know know given that you obviously missed it then and are still missing it now. (As are the seven cowardly dislikers who also missed it.)

Ah, the joys of UKC

Especially considering this quote from Andy Kirkpatrick himself. It comes from a response he made recently to a Tweet about Amnesty International.  I have replaced three of his words with comparable ones that are more relevant to this thread [see brackets]. I think I've been rational with my associations!

“Take a moment to pick apart your tweets [Instagram posts] - word by word - consider why the words are arranged the way they are, where they came from, their weight and power and deeper meaning. They are an invite back to simplistic group think, one I view as racist [Islamophobic] and destructive to black [Muslim] lives.”

ps. Needless to say his opinion on racism was unconventional (he was suggesting Amnesty Int. was racist), but I didn't really look into it much so can't comment.

Your repeated inability to point out what has supposedly been missed, is becoming a bit too obvious.

What amd get into ever decreasing circles of Rom wriggling? Life is too short. You’re a clever chap. Maybe the penny will drop x

You still can't point it out, can you ? You gonna need a bigger spade...

You said you got it already ("No, I didn't miss it"). So explain it or is it too difficult?

No it's not difficult. Your point was that is point was the opposite islamophobic, because his logic was that Islam, like guns, is something that causes harm in the hands of the wrong people. It's all there in your post.

But of course you chose the superficial and ignored the deeper meaning.

It's pretty obvious how he uses this duplicitous rethorical trick to imply that Islam is comparable to a weapon of death whilst pretending to make a point about something else. Given that you are an expert at doing just that, you should have seen it. 

  No, try harder. Depending on the old Rommy telepathy again?

Get a room, you two, eh?

Dinner soon. I'll be off. Yummy.

Candle lit one with Rom?
How nice, when's the wedding?

I love Andy and his writing. Yes, he sometimes jumps in with both feet to see how big a splash he makes but he never toes the corporate line.

You can agree or disagree but at least the conversation is out in the open.

Climbing, and humanity in general, need more voices like his.

At last someone's answered the questions in my OP!

What were the questions? Your OP was as vague as Andy's stuff you were posting about. 

I find Andy to be (was) an inspiring speaker, climber and writer, and read many of his books.

However in the past couple of years his social media accounts have become the outlet of a series of nonsensical political rants, written in this duplicitous fashion so characteristic of the new alt right.

Of course he blames society for not getting any more money as a speaker, but really, the only reason he is getting less money as a speaker is because he went from this inspiring creative persona telling unique and amazing stories, to a frustrated angry old man peddling nonsense online. We have more than enough of those already.

If we want to listen to intellectual masturbation for sexually and socially frustrated white males, frankly we can always go to YouTube and listen to Jordan Peterson, at least, he does it well.

I hope Andy K come back from the dark hole he seems to be in, and hopefully delights us again with his amazing climbing, writing and story telling.

Nice easy one this: Why do climbers not challenge his views more? Why do they continue to support him financially?

No comment!