Fans of the artist will consume the art anyways

The argument

At his peak, Michael Jackson had over 6 million fans. Although some bystanders occasionally bought a few albums here and there and participated in streaming his songs, the majority of his sales came from his incredibly dedicated fanbase. The distinction between those two groups is what the argument depends on, because it identifies where an artist's support actually comes from — not the casual listener whose habits might change, but a committed core whose habits are unlikely to. This also happens to be the same fanbase that, even when allegations against Jackson came out, rushed to defend his actions and continued to stream his music. That response is offered as evidence that the core audience is not responsive to the consideration being urged on the individual consumer. The allegations were the strongest available test of whether such a fanbase would withdraw its support, and on this account it did not. One individual consumer is an insignificant speck in this sea of consumers, and regardless of whether or not that consumer chooses to continue consuming the art, the artist and their legacy will still survive through their fans. The reasoning concerns causal efficacy rather than desert. An act of abstention is intended to produce an effect on the artist, and where the number abstaining is negligible against the number who are not, the intended effect does not occur. Therefore, if someone enjoys music or a movie or a book, they might as well listen to it, as it doesn't make a difference for the artist anyways. The consumer should just consume what they enjoy and stop worrying about all of these external factors. The conclusion follows from the premise that the abstention changes nothing: once the effect is subtracted, what remains is only the cost to the person abstaining, which is a loss with nothing on the other side of it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Boycotting is not just about physically stripping the artist of their material income, it is also an awareness campaign. When #WeinsteinIsOverParty trends on Twitter, people can see it and explore the page, seeing the accusations that have been made upon him. A mass movement allows people to participate, incentivizing people to learn more about important issues like sexual assault. This will erode their fanbase eventually, because not all fans are just fanatically blind supporters of the artist. When they see public opinion turn on them, when they continuously learn more about everything bad that their idol has done, they could still see the artist in a new light and change their opinions. Michael Jackson fans aren’t fans forever, but they are human forever.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Fans can change based on public opinion [Rejecting P2] The difference made is not just in material sales, but in awareness about the artist