[sillysaurus3]

This is a great reply, and I felt myself being persuaded by it. Then I thought about it. Your criticism of his writings appears to boil down to "He's not taking a stance." Is that an accurate summary?

If so, then it's impossible to be ok with excluding him.

[21893120975]

I'm ok with not listening to him, not to take him serious. I wouldn't be okay with exclusion, out of principle (I'm in the camp "talk with the fringe in public spaces and needle them till their inconsistencies show", I think non-platformism is the only "toxic" thing there is in this context). But to me he still has to prove being worth active inclusion.

Flippantly, my criticism is "he's hinting at provocative ideas without committing" or more aggressively "he's a weasly,trolling edgelord".

You can't debate his views because as far as we know, they do not exist, he's just using sophistry and language tricks to either dog whistle (which you can call out directly, but he can always claim you got it wrong) or to make room for everyone to fill gaps with their own emotional/pattern matched reaction (which lets you argue against things he never said).

To me, once someone sends me or I find a writing of his where he clearly states what his ideas are, he'll be worth listening to, and as I said, I'll happily needle him till I have something I can intellectually engage in and debate. But I won't put in effort to read his blabla to find that.

Because, you know, if you are actually insightful and actually care, you'll make it understandable and concise

[archagon]

Sounds to me like the criticism is more along the lines of “his argument is intentionally occluded by dog whistle writing”.

[21893120975]

exactly :)

[sillysaurus3]

Do we all agree that society is excluding him even though neither of you can find a single quote worth this judgement? Because even if you aren't excluding him, that's what is effectively happening. He's being blacklisted and you both are one step removed from whatever precipitated it. It's hard not to read this as bandwagoning.

Yes, it takes effort to discredit someone. But that's a good thing. Imagine being in his shoes, and no one will listen to reason because they heard some internet comment from a third-hand source that vaguely insinuated he's a racist.

I'm not too familiar with his writings either, but the point is that it's up to you to prove his beliefs are crazy. It's not okay to handwave and say zero dollars should support his project just because he voiced a vague opinion.