from girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to world@lemmy.world on 23 Mar 2024 18:44
https://lemmy.ca/post/18014242
She was so exhausted she slumped to the ground after finishing the race which is inspired by a famous prison escape.
The course, at Frozen Head State Park, changes every year but covers 100 miles involving 60,000ft of climb and descent - about twice the height of the Mount Everest.
Only 20 people have ever made it to the end of the race within the allotted 60 hours since it was extended to 100 miles in 1989.
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Prospective runners must write a “Why I should be allowed to run in the Barkley” essay along with a $1.60 (£1.27) entrance fee and if successful get a letter of condolence.
Competitors must find between nine and 14 books along the course (the exact number varies each year) before removing the page corresponding to their race number from each book as proof of completion.
#world
threaded - newest
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The course, at Frozen Head State Park, changes every year but covers 100 miles involving 60,000ft of climb and descent - about twice the height of the Mount Everest.
Pictures show her legs scratched from pushing through sharp bushes and scrub in dense forest on steep slopes.
David Miller, a professional photographer at the race, told BBC Scotland he had witnessed the “greatest ultramarathon achievement of all time”.
"There was a lot of anticipation at the finish line and three minutes before the 60 hour cut off we heard shouting and a roar and it was people cheering Jasmin on.
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Racers are also required to bring an additional “fee”, which in the past has included things such as a white shirt, socks, or a car registration plate, as a donation for being a non-finisher.
The original article contains 870 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What in cracker fucking hell. You know you could just fucking lie about your motives, right?
“We thought hey, what better an idea than paying homage to the escape of the guy who killed MLK?”
Some people…
In the article they explain that by naming a 100 mile ultramarathon after him, they’re mocking Ray because he only made it 12 miles.
Oh. Well, uh, we are talking about him again, so. Maybe attaching a race to him in any way is . . . not optimal.
Point of clarification - the race is NOT named after the shooter, instead it was named after the organizers friend.
It is not a homage, it’s a mockery. It does retrace part of his escape, but goes 10x as far over much, much more brutal terrain. The race started as a joke about what a wimp the guy was to only cover 12 miles in 50hrs of running.
There is a documentary about the race called "the race that eats its young" that is excellent if you want to learn more.
I dunno, Cantrell seems kinda gleefully obtuse about the inspiration in the trailer. Now, I don’t think he’s intending to say anything nice about Ray, but there’s just something offputting about how casual he is about it, like he thinks the main cultural legacy of James Earl Ray is being bad at cross-country running. I guess not the end of the world, but… tacky.
Well, just from a media literacy stance, watching 90 seconds of a movie trailer and then deciding the blatantly irreverent presenter of a grueling triathlon/art piece that invites global participation is secretly a supporter of a racist murderer, is probably not rock solid analysis.
I can tell you as someone who watched the documentary in it entirely, dug deeper into the history afterwards, and has an ultra marathoner friend i’ve discussed it with, that I did not come to the same conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that the race has basically nothing to do with that piece of shit murderer. His sad ass escape may have been the inspiration 45 years ago for a joke that became an art piece that became a grueling ultra marathon, but now it is very much about the race. At no point do they venerate or even wink at the shithead. The closest they get i nthe documentary is that part of the race in 2014 involved wading through a stream that goes under the abandoned prison, but even that is just designed to plunge the runners and their many wounds into ice cold water over and over again as they lap the course over 60 insane hours.
You can read more about the man and the some times madcap race criteria here. they average 1000 applicants/yr now, but only accept 40.
As an example of the irreverence, of the 40 runners allowed each year, 1 runner who is deemed unqualified is allowed entry as the “human sacrifice.” They are given bib #1.
There is often a race fee of “a clean pair of socks” or tshirts, which he wears during the race. He demands “$1.60 and a license plate from your home country or state” as the entry fee.
Glad to hear it, and I hope was pretty explicit in stating I didn’t think he actually supported James Earl Ray. He comes off more as somebody who’s up his own ass than a crypto-racist.
Again, not the end of the world, just a bit tone deaf.
Again, 90 seconds of trailer isn’t exactly a great amount of source material for your conclusion, but okay then.
Dudes only “up his own ass” in the sense that he runs a brutal series of marathons in a whimsical fashion. He “keeps austin weird” basically, even if it is in Tennessee.
I hope the extensive list of articles, documentary links, and general feedback is enough to inspire a tasteful edit of something like “wow, I learned and that guy is great at making fun of the guy who shot MLK.”
Do you feel the obligation to be outraged by the most pointless things or does it come naturally?
Reading only the excerpt and knowing nothing else about the race, yeah I think it’s pretty fucking normal to be outraged. If it didn’t raise an eyebrow for you I find that very fucking suspicious.
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
It’s just about the escape, and the terrain covered, specifically. The point is he didn’t make it far on that terrain and the competitors do so much more.
They have willingly associated themselves with it after the fact, and to make no comment on what is an extremely dark chapter of American history seems pretty irresponsible. It would take absolutely no effort at all to say, “we are not valorising this man”, so not doing it is quite telling.
If that is true and you have it from the organisers, then they have made some comment on the man himself. Could you share how you know about this?
Go read about the race, it’s literally to mock the dude, the organizer said that could run more, as a burn
Okay, reading the article itself and not just the summary:
So it’s just that the summary leaves out this information, which if they’re going to mention the origins of the race is a pretty crucial detail to omit.
I have to say though, when you say they “make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person” it really does create the impression they’re being neutral in the matter, which they obviously aren’t. I’m glad you explained more.
Well they don’t describe the crime, or emit a stance on it, which makes sense, it’s a trail race not a political or social justice platform.
Look, the issue here is clearly that the race appeared crypto-racist on that summary, and instead of clearly explaining the issue, you stated exactly the things that the race organisers are neutral on, which seems to almost surgically sidestep the clearly anti-racist motivations. You weren’t technically wrong, but you can walk up to literally anyone on the street and say “you’re going to die” and you’re not wrong, but they’d want know why you were saying it.
This is about framing. There are infinite details in the universe, the trick with communication is to filter down to the important, salient details.
Most folks would just say “my bad, I didn’t read the article”
Cool talk, thanks, glad you took on board what I was saying.
You can see from my comments how easy it is to clarify this issue in a straightforward way once you have read the article, but if you don’t know how to do that I understand.
Oh I do, I just hope you take this instance to mind the next time you decide whether to comment based on the article or the auto generated summary.
I was commenting based on the comment I was replying to, which on reflection seemed to be intentionally avoiding answering the question. I can’t think of another reason why someone who knew anything about this would have been as circumspect as they were.
Look, man, if you didn’t read the article and were misled by the auto generated summary, do not blame someone else for not spelling it out for you.
Maaaybe, step 2 of that miscommunication might’ve been them not explicitly spelling everything out for you, but what was step 1?
It was you commenting without having read the article at hand.
Guess which one of these two is within YOUR control to prevent future misunderstandings?
Things might be different if this comment thread wasn’t centered around a single article, but it is, so the reasonable assumption is that participants in the conversation have read the article.
EDIT: Don’t get me wrong, you get props for going back in the article and recognizing that it provides a very different context from the auto generated summary, but I just don’t think chastising someone else without acknowledging that you messed up by not reading the article is the play.
Okay, I didn’t read it and should have. Usually I would, but I was commenting on a conversation. It’s been dealt with now so we can drop it, right?
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info? Because the moment I had it I clarified the issue very easily. I wonder what they were doing saying shit like:
Because that’s so wrong that if they did know the actual story then it amounts to a lie of omission. It’s so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate. Any thoughts on that or is this like a team sport sort of situation?
No, because it’s in the article being discussed at hand. It’s already been shared, some folks have ignored it.
If you read the second paragraph of their comment, it further goes on to say it’s just about the terrain. That second paragraph then reframes the first paragraph, because that first paragraph just states that organizers didn’t comment on the crime, and the second paragraph says what the organizers actually focused on instead.
Sure, quoting the first sentence out of context makes it seem so deliberately precise that it could be misleading, but the second sentence provides the context that shows why they were so absolute in that statement.
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren’t being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they’d be able to give it a go and get do much better.
He said “it’s literally to mock the dude”, but to pretend like that is devoid of politics is to ignore what politics is. That’s the problem here.
Great. Now that you have a more well thought argument, take it up with them, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they just ignore you.
You’re one of the people pretending this isn’t political.
Did I say that, or are you conflating the cognitive dissonance of me discouraging you from blindly trusting autogenerated summaries with me generally disagreeing with you on everything?
You can say you were just paraphrasing, but “simply claiming” implies you saw nothing wrong with what they were saying.
EDIT: And I actually said that “to pretend like that is devoid of politics” was a problem, I never said you were saying it. But apparently you’re happy to just repeat it as if it’s a fine thing to say.
Oh, well when I said , “simply claiming”, I was implying that most folks don’t have an issue understanding what they meant, because it’s simple when you take both paragraphs into consideration.
It seems like just as you chose to interpret things in an adversarial manner then, you are choosing to do so now.
EDIT: sigh, to address your edit:
It’s pretty clear that you were asserting it’s one of my beliefs here:
Sorry, you’re right about the edit, I lost track of that when I was reading back.
Yeah idk what app you’re using but in sync, once conversations have this many exchanges, it becomes completely unreadable as entire comments are compressed into a single column of 1 letter wide rows. Given this UI issue I’m not sure we can really continue the conversation if we wanted to.
I hope you have a good day - I appreciate the good faith and earnestness from everyone.
Read the article, self serve a little bit before branding a whole situation racist
Edit In this case they filtered down the important details…right in the article…the core vehicle of communication.
And the fact you couldn’t just say that in your comment is either because you don’t know how to just say what you mean, or you hadn’t read the article yourself at that point. Which is it?
And I didn’t brand the whole situation racist, that was conditional on the information you were giving me. If you wanted to say it wasn’t racist, you could have done that if you had the information.
Lmgtfy
Step 2 of being outraged by an auto generated summary would ideally be to read the actual article to get more context before expressing that outrage.
I don’t think the issue being raised here is that you were outraged by the excerpt, it’s that the excerpt was trusted at face value enough to mislead folks, and it seems people just double down after being misled by the auto generated excerpt.
The best way to remember an assassin is to make fun of how actually inept they are.
Keep reading bud
The summary mentions this detail and completely omits the rest of that section:
So it appears to be an extended exercise in mocking the asshole, which I wholeheartedly approve of.
Honestly the summary could’ve omitted the origins, or given it that crucial context. Giving the first sentence and not the rest is like the worst way to summarise that and it’s a big issue to just leave out. I would’ve included all of that because frankly it’s hilarious.
Yup, not sure why I got attacked and downvoted for this, it’s pretty fucking clear that the summary tells a different story than the article. But hey it’s par for the course on here, where outrage is performative, and real rage is frown upon.
I’ve also noticed an interesting trend from way back on Reddit, but there’s always some reactionary who uses one of the GBU bombs as their nickname.
Give a reactionary even the slightest chance to “well ackshually” away racism and they’ll jump on it. They’re not generally correct about things, so if they have a chance to be technically correct it’s like catnip. It’s fascinating how easy it would have been to explain the situation but this GBU person wanted them to be all “no comment” about it, as if that would have been an acceptable answer. It’s almost like they didn’t want to acknowledge the actual anti-racist motivations.
And yeah, I thought the GBU thing was familiar. I can’t find anything about it being a dogwhistle though, it’s not an easy thing to google.
EDIT: Maybe it’s not a dogwhistle, it could easily refer to guided bombs. Maybe it’s just one person with way too much time on their hands.
Well said! Yes it’s a reference to the guided bomb, that’s what I’m saying. He’s not the only one I’ve seen back in the Reddit days.
Damn they should’ve lead with that. That’s actually hilarious. Fuck that guy.
Yup, and there’s definitely people in this thread that really want to say “ackshually it’s not racist” but then are working really hard to give the impression that the race is simply neutral about the man himself. It’s almost like those people don’t want to admit that it’s actually anti-racist and based as fuck.
EDIT: I don’t want to vague-post about this. This is what the person in question actually said:
That’s fucked up, right? If they knew… how did they so specifically avoid explaining what the race is actually about?
For fun reference purposes: it’s one race called “The Barkley Marathons” with an s, because it covers multiple marathons.
Boy marathons look like a good time.
Yeah, this is not a marathon. Marathons are a walk in the park compared to this.
As opposed to girl marathons?
What an achievement, that race is as tough as it gets
For anyone who’s interested, there’s a really good documentary on the Barkley Marathons that was made several years ago. The Barkley Marathons: The Race That Eats Its Young.
Most years, no one places at all.
This isnt a race with 1st or last. It only has “finished or didn’t.”
This year, 5 of 40 finished, which was a record. The “winner” finished at 58:44:59, with the other 4 finishing in the last hour. She is one of 17 people to ever complete the newer, fully unmarked race route.
Thumbnail makes it look like a warzone
Wow wow