The bad thing would be if FLI funded them. FLI did not fund them due to things discovered due to due diligence. So FLI literally did nothing wrong, and literally has nothing to apologize for.
Unless we actually are saying that talking with ‘bad people’ is automatically bad and something you should apologize to all your right thinking friends for having contaminated them with proximity to badness afterwards .
Is there a principled argument that thinking about funding a group like that, and then changing your mind is bad?
Unless we actually are saying that talking with ‘bad people’ is automatically bad and something you should apologize to all your right thinking friends for having contaminated them with proximity to badness afterwards.
This is putting it very, very euphemistically, if you want to call ‘offering $100,000 in funding to a neo-Nazi publication’ ,‘talking with bad people’.
Is there a principled argument that thinking about funding a group like that, and then changing your mind is bad?
Yes. Even if they thankfully never granted the money, the question remains—why was Nya Dagbladet ever anywhere near a shortlist of things that FLI would consider funding?
The fact remains that FLI has not disavowed Nya Dagbladet for their neo-nazi views. This is the most FLI gave as an explanation for them rescinding the offer of funding:
we ultimately decided to reject it because of what our subsequent due diligence uncovered
This is incredibly vague and could be talking about almost anything! Other parts of their non-apology seem to hint that they consider Nya Dagbladet’s political views are acceptable, and ok to be engaging with. Again, this is taken from their apology:
The Future of Life Institute makes no apologies for engaging with many people across the immensely diverse political spectrum, because our mission is so important that it needs broad support from all sectors of society...
We will continue to engage the broadest sample of humankind, whether or not we are criticized by anyone who questions our motives, or who may have their own agendas.
I can’t believe I’m writing this, but some political views should be roundly rejected and never considered acceptable when thinking about the future of humankind. Holocaust deniers should be top of that list, and FLI needs to say as such ASAP.
FLI “approved” the grant, as documented by a letter Expo published, and then walked back the approval. I don’t see “thinking about funding” or “talking with ‘bad people’” as accurate characterizations of what happened.
We also don’t know if FLI walked the grant back because they learned more about the vile views expressed by the everyone associated with the foundation, or for some other reason. For instance, the Nya Dagbladet website contains advocacy for a political party that several dozen US lawmakers have called to be identified as a foreign terrorist group. Although supporting neo-nazis is constitutionally protected in the US and raises no legal concerns, few organizations want to be anywhere in the same ballpark as a potential foreign terrorist organization.
I am confused.
The bad thing would be if FLI funded them. FLI did not fund them due to things discovered due to due diligence. So FLI literally did nothing wrong, and literally has nothing to apologize for.
Unless we actually are saying that talking with ‘bad people’ is automatically bad and something you should apologize to all your right thinking friends for having contaminated them with proximity to badness afterwards .
Is there a principled argument that thinking about funding a group like that, and then changing your mind is bad?
This is putting it very, very euphemistically, if you want to call ‘offering $100,000 in funding to a neo-Nazi publication’ ,‘talking with bad people’.Yes. Even if they thankfully never granted the money, the question remains—why wasNya Dagbladetever anywhere near a shortlist of things that FLI would consider funding?The fact remains that FLI has not disavowedNya Dagbladetfor their neo-nazi views. This is the most FLI gave as an explanation for them rescinding the offer of funding:This is incredibly vague and could be talking about almost anything! Other parts of their non-apology seem to hint that they considerNya Dagbladet’spolitical viewsare acceptable, and ok to be engaging with. Again, this is taken from their apology:I can’t believe I’m writing this, but some political views should be roundly rejected and never considered acceptable when thinking about the future of humankind. Holocaust deniers should be top of that list, and FLI needs to say as such ASAP.FLI “approved” the grant, as documented by a letter Expo published, and then walked back the approval. I don’t see “thinking about funding” or “talking with ‘bad people’” as accurate characterizations of what happened.
We also don’t know if FLI walked the grant back because they learned more about the vile views expressed by the everyone associated with the foundation, or for some other reason. For instance, the Nya Dagbladet website contains advocacy for a political party that several dozen US lawmakers have called to be identified as a foreign terrorist group. Although supporting neo-nazis is constitutionally protected in the US and raises no legal concerns, few organizations want to be anywhere in the same ballpark as a potential foreign terrorist organization.