[Imc-uk-process] [Imc-uk-features] Anti-Imperial Editorial Guideline?

[Mr. Demeanour]

Ben wrote:
>  I didn't mean to promote it, I thought I had merely
>  unhidden it and I don't think that it deserves to be rehidden as it
>  makes completely valid points such as "UK and US air superiority is
>  absolute, the insurgents have no attack capability against massed 
> armour and to suggest that the US Army could not leave Iraq anytime
>  it wanted with no more than very minimal probis just fanciful."
> 
> As for formalising indymedia's anti-war position... would this 
> referee specifically to the us/uk invasion of iraq or be a wider
> anti- war statement generally, basically state position against
> violence, or specifically state violence, or specific states with
> imperialist agendas? I think it would be a mistake to cast a wide net
> on this one but if it seems a good idea then I suggest we also
> specify indymedia position on other issues such a climate change
> (with a guideline prohibiting climate change denial posts) and
> biotechnology (with a guidelines prohibiting pro-GM/nano post)... etc
> etc.

I find that logic rather compelling. Personally, my position is fiercely
anti-war (anti-Iraq war, and verging on total pacifism). But if Indy UK
declares an editorial policy that requires posters to conform to my
opinions, I might as well just go off into a corner and talk to myself.

The comment in question was described as "disinformation". What's that
about? To be disinformation, surely it first has to be false? This
sentence is a questionable claim of fact (questionable, but not
necessarily false):

     The Brirish Army has completed this training pretty
     much on the timeline and with minimal casualities in
     military terms.

Apart from that, I can't see anything in the comment that isn't simply -
well, fair comment.

As Ben suggests, if Indy UK adopts an editorial policy requiring posters
to conform with specified attitudes to war, then it would be
unreasonable not to consider adopting policies requiring conformity with
other right-on styles of thinking. Eek! I'm afraid that kind of
conformity wouldn't suit me at all - and anyway, many of those other
right-on points of view are likely to be positions that I *don't* share.

But that comment isn't obviously pro-war. It's also not anti-war
agit-prop. Is it being suggested that only agit-prop should be permitted
on the newswire? I think that would be a very big mistake.

So that's a -1 from this participant, for regulating the newswire based
on the poster's conformity with specified styles of thought (yeah, I
know it's not a poll).

-- 
Jack.