Getting kind of tired of all the "he's only human" talk in my social media circle. "This is what happens when you put people on a pedestal, Joss Whedon is just a human being," they will say. I'm quick to remind them that the problem isn't Joss Whedon being human. The problem is that Joss Whedon is an abusive, cruel human.
Quoted for truth. Everything we've learned about Whedon at this point, even from his own mouth, is that he is a horrible human being. And no, we shouldn't "idolize" horrible human beings.
There is, however, virtue in exemplars and role models. This is, after all, the central thesis behind inclusive media. People who open doors that have been shut by people with power and privilege, and who pave the path forward so that those who follow in their wake can get by a little bit easier, push a little bit farther. Of course, this is not at all mutually exclusive; Marion Zimmer Bradley being one of many examples. One could argue Whedon did the same, pushing the envelope of female-lead action television, to say nothing of some of the first positive portrayals of gay people on American TV. Buffy is considered as ground-breaking as it is for a reason, after all. And yeah, there are parts of it that do not hold up at all for a variety of reasons, several of which
don't even involve Xander.
There is importance both in boosting role models and in holding bad actors accountable. We can do both, and probably would, if not for the power and privilege that is afforded anyone to reach a position to be a nationally-known role model at all.
Say what you will about the Harry Potter books, there's a reason they resonated as well as they did for its generation of fans, in particular the outcasts and misfits (many of them queer! Seriously, the only millennial I've ever met that was both queer and
didn't get way into Harry Potter growing up is... myself, and I'm both (a) barely a millennial at all at (b) didn't realize I was queer until my early 30's). That J.K. Rowling has developed into a distinctly horrific and cruel individual doesn't change what her works meant to those who it meant so much to.
Harry Potter has been a good test case for "what am I, a consumer, supposed to do now that I know", because the Venn Diagram between "Trans People active on the internet" and "Harry Potter fans' is essentially a small circle completely inside a larger circle. Of course there's been disagreement, but the best I've seen to a consensus is this: the time to be an open and effusive Harry Potter fan has passed. That does not mean you have to throw all your books and merch on the bonfire, nor does it mean disavowing the memories you had of the books shaped the person you eventually became; the parts of the books that once spoke to you and might still speak to you still can. But also like... not financially supporting a loud and powerful voice for bigotry is kind of a given. This includes anything that promotes the works at all; don't talk somebody else into buying and reading all the Harry Potter books, for instance.
This is, I think, a sensible solution for the "horrifying reveal and pedestal shattering" phase of most of horrible peoples' careers, up to and including Whedon.
Terrible folks who are dead are another beast entirely, to which I would say follow the money. The Eddings' trust is in the hands of a school, for instance.