On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Lodewijk,
I want to ask about something you wrote:
... Not taking a position is definitely not the same as taking a 'neutral' position or holding the middle ground.
Suppose for the sake of argument that there are two competing popular opinions, one of which is more true than another. If the opinions are noteworthy statements on notable subjects, then it is appropriate to describe both. In accepting the right to do so for others, isn't there a corresponding responsibility to describe which of the two reliable sources say is more true?
If you are not concerned about the problem of hubris, perhaps not.
The point I am trying to make, is that those who view a lack of partisanship as a benefit are those who don't speak up when things are going wrong, and those people are hurting the people our Mission seeks to educate, and the people our Mission depends on to volunteer.
Often, "educate" seems to mean propagandize., always equipped with the paving stones of the road to hell.
Are there any specific reasons that the Foundation should remain
neutral on any topic, economic, political, or otherwise, which clearly impacts the readership or community?
What topics don't clearly impact some of the readership of community?
This discussion seems to be framed almost entirely in idealism and absolutes, entities that rarely seem to lead to practical solutions for a society of diverse interests.
To the extent that we do have recourse to ideals and absolutes, they should probably be limited to the core values which the movement has accepted from the beginning. That way this institution can be a vehicle for truth of the factual variety, recognizing that even facts can be in legitimate dispute.