,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
While Andrew Neil was deftly able to expose Ben Shapiro as a fraud and a know-nothing (which, on a good day, he's able to do more forensically than any other broadcaster I can think of), the central pillar of Shapiro's ideology was left intact.
And this is the problem of the idea that 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' when it comes to challenging fascism. The set-up of an adverserial interview means you're well-placed to discredit an individual, less so to delegitimise an ideology and an its intellectual hinterland.
Ben Shapiro, and others like him, are more than happy to disavow or modify previous racist statements. But none of this transforms the core of their racism. Case in point: Andrew Neil was able to get Shapiro to row back on an individual racist comment about Arabs...
but didn't touch the foundation of Shapiro's work, 'Judeo-Christian culture'. Why is this important? Because the framing sets Muslims apart from Jews and Christians, and absolves Christianity and whiteness more generally of having the most deadly antisemitic history in existence.
I think that 'no platform' is a tool rather than a moral imperative. When it comes to whether or not you interview a fascist, I'd be inclined to think it through along the following lines...
What does a 'car crash' interview really cost this individual? What does the prestige of the platform itself lend them? Do you think of their racism/misogyny/antisemitism/Islamophobia as a set of discrete events or statements, or connected to a broader political project?
