Everyone who disagrees with his ideology but still loves D&D and wants to support the game (just not the ideology Crawford presents). How would you like it if D&D came out and said, "we're no longer going to include images of blacks in our gamebooks."
You'd be torn. On the one hand, you love the game (as an apolitical object of fun and enjoyment) and would want to support the game. On the other hand, you hate the message. You have the option, now, of supporting both or neither. It's a simple choice to decide which one you'd support (it would be for me, too), but the thought experiment shows how media is not the correct, ethical tool to use when promoting an agenda.
I understand this argument, intellectually, but here's the flipside of the argument that you seem to be consistently ignoring: there is no such thing as something which is apolitical.
For reference, there was (thankfully not considerable, but still existant) backlash when the PHB came out because it had black people in it, or because of that statement on gender and sexuality. There were a lot more voices of support, but there was also backlash. Had the PHB not included any images of POC? That would have assuredly provoked a response as well, both against and in support.
The incontrovertible fact, and one that you have been consistently ignoring throughout this thread, is that refusing to take a side
is still taking a side. The status quo
is a side, and choosing to maintain it promotes, whether you want it to or not, an ideological standpoint.
There is no neutrality on the issue of more diverse representation.
What you're arguing for is for Mr. Crawford to have not revealed his reasoning for more diverse representation (which you have insisted multiple times you are in favor of), but that means you've both a) taken a side and b) are asking for media content creators to either let their work speak for themselves or else to be intellectually dishonest, but given the politicized nature of, well, everything in this day and age, is increasingly more a matter of having to do both.
But where you are most demonstrably wrong is that media is a perfectly correct and ethical tool to use when promoting an ideological agenda, and media has been used for betterment of society for centuries, if not millenia. History classes would teach us about
Uncle Tom's Cabin or
The Jungle. Hell, most of our oldest surviving media (in the form of the Odyssey and other ancient Greek stories and plays) promoted an ideological stance, and that's carried through our most celebrated historical authors, from Shakespeare to Voltaire to the Chinese Four Books & Five Classics to Twain to Buck to Huxley to Bradbury to this very day. The only "apolitical" media is media that exclusively reinforces the dominant narrative of the age and place, and I hate to break to you, but that's as political as anything attempting to upset those narratives.