Imagine an antiwar campaign being funded by an arms dealer
Sure. Imagine taxing arms dealers and manufacturers to run antiwar campaigns. Imagine taxing tobacco and other narcotics makers and dealers to invest in prevention, mitigation, researching and curing.

contrast with "no, I'm not going to accept the guns they wish to give up, because they're dirty from the crimes they committed with them, even if by accepting them I could have them destroyed and turned into useful things"

this "oh, they take dirty money, so they are dirty" is the same sort of superficial reasoning built on undeserved generalizations that I abhor from cancel culture. taking money that would be put to bad uses and putting it to good uses is good, not bad, no matter what prejudices others who haven't thought enough about it might have, provided that certain mitigations are present which people who proceed to engage in cancellations typically don't look into.

question for you to ponder about: would you ever accept an anonymous donation without any strings attached? bear in mind it could be from someone "dirty". or from some fervent but very shy supporter of the cause. there's just no way to tell whom it comes from. how would you decide whether or not to take it?

CC: @webmink@meshed.cloud