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
