I'm sorry, I don't really follow your conclusion.

If the word you are thinking of for me is 'hypocrite', then that's fair. I recognize that this is not entirely intellectually consistent. The problem is that, in my eyes, being entirely intellectually consistent leads to one of two outcomes.

1. Nothing matters, consume what you want. All businesses do shitty things, so don't worry about it.
2. Completely disengage with society. All businesses, all governments, everyone does shitty things, so withdraw from all of it.

The problem is, I don't think either of these are actually helpful outcomes.

In the latter case, unless you found some commune and call forth followers to the woods (in which case, your own actions enter into the equations) you are never going to change anything.

In the former, nothing gets better because you cast aside that 'better' means anything at all. Everyone sucks, so who cares who sucks more than others?

What I am trying to outline is what I call 'doing my best'. I can choose, if/when I want to buy something for my partner, not to buy blood diamonds. I can choose not to consume (and support) media by people who are POS's. I can try to educate myself on how to support elected candidates that will push for better working conditions. Does my consumption sill cause harm? Absolutely, but I can try to make that as small as possible.

Because it is easier to find information on which art is made by problematic actors (but due to celebrity gossip and the high profile nature of the individuals), and because people have such an emotional attachment to art, it is the avenue of consumption that is most affected by people trying to be ethical consumers. Maybe it shouldn't be any different, but it is.

To a point, I agree with you. It's very difficult to be an ethical consumer of anything under an exploitive capitalist system.

For me, it comes down to two things.

1. Art is different. You may connect with you computer or with your clothes, but art is intended to engage you emotionally. Art is also generally sold, at least in part, on the reputation of the artist (starring X!). Apple is not trying to have Steve from Bangladesh as a reason to buy the product in the same way that Knives out is trading on the name of Daniel Craig.
2. Just because it's basically impossible to be an ethical consumer doesn't mean we can't try. With art, it's generally easier to know (at least, currently) who is a massive POS. I'm sure this computer was made with some incredibly inequitable conditions, but tracking down which companies did which is difficult. On the other hand, a Woody Allen movie is trading on his name, and the accusations against him are public knowledge.

This is all to say that we are meant to have a deeper connection to art, and as such I don't think it's unreasonable that we try to hold it to a higher standard. Additionally, since Art trades on the name of the artist, it's reasonable (to me) that the artist's conduct plays a larger roll in the appeal of the movie.

To me, there are two sperate questions. Those being, the consideration of art already consumed, and the desire to consume new art.

Take, for example, Kevin Spacey. Let's say, in my 20's, that I loved 'the usual suspects'. Watched it 1,000 times. Then I learn what he did. What does that doe to my love of that art?
Well, maybe I can separate the person from the art, and maybe I can't. That's each person's decision. But I can recognized that, in this case, my judgement is clouded by some amount of nostalgia. Perhaps I can get a flash of my memories of just enjoying Spacey's performance before I knew about his troubling history. And perhaps not. As it happens, while the above is hypothetical, I still find myself fondly remembering 'Baby Driver' despite his part in it, and have re-watched it a few times after I heard the accusations.

On the other hand is the desire to consume new art. Say, in this case, that Spacey has a new movie come out. Do I go see that in theaters? He is likely to act well in it, and I did enjoy it as an actor, so there is a chance I enjoy it. But by seeing it in theaters, I am spending my time and money, and tacitly saying to the movie industry that 'despite what he is alleged to have done, I am still willing to pay to see this artist.' In doing that, I am actively contributing to an industry that has shown itself more than happy to sweep abuse under the rug in the name of profit. Is that okay? Should I be saying 'yes, I know he's a POS, but he's also a really good actor and I'm paying him for that, not his personal life.'

Put it another way (and this is an imperfect analogy, but I think it tracks)- say my last partner was abusive, but we had good days. Is it wrong for me to miss the time they took me out on a date, and we had fun? In my mind, no. For a time we were happy, and it can be comforting to remember that we stayed so long because they teased you with light amongst the clouds. But do those good memories mean that I should get back together with them? God no, they broke my arm, and would have done worse except the neighbors called the cops. It's not wrong to miss what we had, but it would be to try to create it anew.

We are a tribal people. I think a lot of the resistance and anger around this question comes from 'person whose art I like did a bad thing, people are attacking the author, people are now attacking the art too, I like that art, therefore I must stand by the artist'. I think there is a lot of power in saying 'I did/do like this art. It was a big part of me. But I now recognize that the artist has done/said things that I can't agree with, and I won't be supporting them going forward.'

Ultimately, this all comes down to personal beliefs. Personally, I will never judge someone for an emotional attachment forged to a toxic piece of media, provided that attachment was forged before that person knew it was toxic. But I will judge people for continuing to support a toxic product once they have become aware of it's problems.

I can see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid I don't agree with your conclusion.

I can't see the republic lasting more than another generation, with or without Caesar. Given that, and given that he did do the bare minimum and was a capable administrator, I do give him a modicum of credit.

Besides which, I think conservatives are always going to find someone to blame. If not Caesar, then it would have been those dastardly Gracchi, nothing but populist rabble rousers with their proto-commie ideals. People are always going to use/pervert history to fit their agenda. As an example, the third Riche literally held up Frederic the Great as the idea Aryan man, despite him being a homosexual Francophile. (And yes, I know I just Godwin'd myself)

I'm not trying to pretend he was some great altruist, or paragon of virtue- god knows he wasn't. And I think your reading of history is valid. Just that I am far more sympathetic to his position, given the realities of the roman Senate in his day, and the way that the established order has always presented the version of history that is most favorable to them.

Crassus was a bastard, no arguments about that. Caesar too.

With that said, I would argue that even Caesar's minimum was a damn site more than the senate would have done had he not seized power. As an example, this was a senate that was so calcified that they refused to consider the matter of confirming Pompei's conquests- conquests that had already happened, mind you- because they were afraid Pompei would gain too much power. The senatorial faction that he faced had- multiple times- eschewed public order and common decency to kill agents acting for the people of Rome. Who had refused to consider the idea of Italian citizenship until the rest of the peninsula was literally in revolt.

The lesson most people take from Caesar is the one you are saying, 'beware of populists', and I get it. That is a reasonable lesson to take away. But I think there is a second lesson. Because the 'Republic', at that time, was anything but. The way the voting worked, lower class Romans had little say, and yet less once you account for the votes sold under Roman Patronage (sell your vote to a senator for a stipend, because slaves were doing all the work they would normally do). The tribune of the plebs, the office meant to ensure the lower classes had some say, had effectively been gutted. Income inequality was insane, and the senate was inactive.

So yes, people listened to someone who told them what they wanted to hear and followed him into proto-empire. But what, exactly, did they give up? A political voice they had already sold to keep food on the table? This, to me, is that second lesson- at a certain level of political malaise, the people will begin looking for someone- anyone- who can offer them a better way.

For me, one of the big differences between the first group and the others is the strong decline in % as you go on, and I think part of that is the brat/frat pack became a lot less of a clique as they aged. I wonder how the percentages would change if you (say) limit the later two to movies made in their 20's.

People have given a lot of good reasons, but there is one other that I wanted to add, with an example.

For Project Hail Marry, Andy Weir got some really excellent quotes for his book. One of these was from George RR Martin. Which was kind of a big deal for him, and everyone wanted to use.

The problem is that Martin did exactly what you mentioned- he talked about something he liked about the book. The thing he talked about was something that Andy had been trying not to spoil about his book. So this created a problem- give away a major plot point, or not use the quote.

The more a book's quote say about the book, the more it has the potential to spoil. For instance, if I say a book is 'really, really good' that may be an endorsement. If I say 'Man, I didn't see the third act twist coming, and it really recontextualizes the writing before that point in a way I find interesting,' then some readers might find that enticing, and some might be pissed that I just gave away the fact of that twist.

Jurassic park is the one I always think of. There are elements of the book that like like, but overall the movie is much better.