Fwd: [Boston-editorial] comments solicited on boston imc editorial policies...

[Jonathan D. Proulx]

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:51:15PM -0400, Matthew Williams wrote:

::From: "maus" <xmausx at riseup.net> 

::"legitimate conservative posters (we don't want to hide people's 
::posts 
::simply because we disagree with them)" 
::
::um... why not? just wondering. i mean i don't think anyone wants to 
::pretend that imc is politically neutral, right? why does republican 
::flame 
::bait count as more "legitimate" than nazi flamebait? 

Don't we want to expose peole to alternate views? If we shut out
dissent (or party line in this case) only those who already expect and
agree with our position will read the site.

Just becaus ethe internet makes it sudutively easy to wrap ourselves
up in our own comfortable ideologies doesn't mean we should.  If we
wish to make real change in the real world we need to be able to deal
witht the people who inhabit that world.  Excluding those who
disagree with us (even if they're just plain wrong) allows use to be
cozy but fosters complacency rather than change.  

I think the site's a bit draconian in it's political correctness my
self, though I seem vastly out numbered in that position.

::"Right now, we draw the line at posts that are clearly prejudiced, 
::contains threats of violence, and are simply insulting, with no 
::substantial comments." 
::
::honestly ... i would find one or two more people willing to check & 
::delete 
::this kinds of comments because i see lots of the third category, at 
::least. 

Well yeh, I agree with that.  BTW looks like I'm booked with family
events Sunday, but if it's the will of the group to elevate me to
Editor status in absentia, I could probably make a big dent in the
"your dumb -- no YOU'RE dumb" debates since I'm chained to a compouter
10-12hr a day.

-Jon