Reviewing Principles

For those who are new, one of the first things I wrote on the site was a draft of principles. Here are the principles.

PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT

  1. This site is for entertainment. Posts need to add not subtract from the site. Fun is important.
  2. No attacking the person. Attacking words are okay. People get to openly disagree and have vigorous debates over ideas not personalities.
  3. Keep it clean. This site should be family and children friendly. (The web has plenty of places to express non-family thoughts.) This does not mean that we don’t handle in John Walker’s words “gnarly subjects” but we do it without the coarseness of most of the Internet.
  4. Keep it legit. Respect copyright toward images and text. Give attribution when needed.
  5. This is a conservative site. If you can’t respect those principles please find a site more conducive to your ideas.

I don’t want to bore you so I will just focus on Number One.

  1. This site is for entertainment. Posts need to add not subtract from the site. Fun is important.

I want this site to be enjoyable and beneficial. It shouldn’t be work. Anyone who takes part needs to add and not subtract to the site.  To understand what I mean please read the following from an earlier post, Disagreement Versus Disruption.

In a pluralist society disagreement is its mother milk. People need to keep true to their beliefs. I am a firm believer in, there is more unity in diversity* than uniformity. It works because hopefully there is enough commonality on the basics that people can live in peace. What a society or community can’t handle is willful disruptions. I would put Antifa in this group.

There seems to be a trend where people want to shut down the discussion rather than have it. Many tactics are used. One is the extreme pejorative. “You’re a racist.” “You hate poor people.” “You have no principles.” The next is to heckle. This person wants to stop a good conversation from happening. They don’t rent the room or gather the people. But they figure they have a right to disrupt the people who do. Third, there are the thought police. One can’t even bring up the subject. Certain words need to be bleeped out. “You are part of the patriarchy. ” “Meritocracy is code for keeping people down.” “We know what you really mean.” “One giant leap for [Redacted].”

Whereas disagreement is how we learn. We challenge and listen and respond respectfully. We might go to the lecture and ask questions but we don’t try to shut it down or picket it. We gather people who are like minded and form groups who agree to disagree. Many of the best movements started this way. They disagreed with the status quo and persuaded people that there was a better way.

Good disagreement does not demonize the other person. It does not heckle or shout down the other argument. It does not limit the discussion to only a certain set of words. It should be a marketplace that ideas can be exchanged and positions can change.

* Don’t confuse this with the current use of the word where diversity is used to be anti-opposing views.

4+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

9 thoughts on “Reviewing Principles”

  1. To those visiting from another site {cough}, you can consider Ratburger’s principles of engagement to be a Code of Conduct by another name.  Just because we are free and operated by rabble and deplorables doesn’t mean anything goes.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  2. Phil Turmel:
    To those visiting from another site {cough}, you can consider Ratburger’s principles of engagement to be a Code of Conduct by another name.  Just because we are free and operated by rabble and deplorables doesn’t mean anything goes.

    I think the difference, Phil, is that a Code of Conduct is telling people what they must do. These are more a list of how decisions will be made here.

    It is sad that some of the rudest people are moderators on the Internet. They show a lot of disrespect. They treat people like children that need their parenting.  Hopefully that won’t happen here because everyone is an adult here and will be treated as such.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  3. Yes, we are all still grappling with the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’

    The tragedy of the commons is a term used in environmental science to describe a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    The reason I haven’t renewed at ‘the other site’ is that it stopped being fun. I’m no deep thinker, but I am pretty well read. I’m not going to invest the time to create a 3000 word essay on an issue like, perhaps, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’. But I will enjoy reading the magnum opus of someone who has the time to devote to it, and then comment and hopefully encourage said essayist.

    I visit Ratburger mainly for entertainment and education. I’m not looking for contention, but I do enjoy discussions.

    I hope it remains entertaining for many years to come…

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  4. David Harris:
    Yes, we are all still grappling with the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’

    The tragedy of the commons is a term used in environmental science to describe a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    The reason I haven’t renewed at ‘the other site’ is that it stopped being fun. I’m no deep thinker, but I am pretty well read. I’m not going to invest the time to create a 3000 word essay on an issue like, perhaps, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’. But I will enjoy reading the magnum opus of someone who has the time to devote to it, and then comment and hopefully encourage said essayist.

    I visit Ratburger mainly for entertainment and education. I’m not looking for contention, but I do enjoy discussions.

    I hope it remains entertaining for many years to come…

    David, you reminded me of this post.

    https://www.ratburger.org/index.php/2017/12/30/the-rules-of-ratburger/

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  5. Agree with all rules except number 1. Impossibly subjective and irrelevant.  If we are going to police fun, I am in trouble, but then again, I was born in trouble.

    Make number one the mission statement we can all ignore and never remember while drinking weak coffee and eating stale Danish.

    0

  6. TKC 1101:
    Agree with all rules except number 1. Impossibly subjective and irrelevant.  If we are going to police fun, I am in trouble, but then again, I was born in trouble.

    Make number one the mission statement we can all ignore and never remember while drinking weak coffee and eating stale Danish.

    TKC, you misunderstand. I am the one who is suppose to have the fun. You guys are on your own. 😉

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  7. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Okay what is going on? This is the latest in a long list this past week of “this is who we are” posts. Can someone fill me in.

    Need to know basis only, Robert.  You are not on the list.

    Simon Templar got a 3-month vacation from the site and I thought it would be good to let the new people (and me) remember some of these earlier posts.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar

Leave a Reply