> Someone who makes their living from their art adjusts it to the preferences of the remaining customer base.
If that means "making racist art", then I think that says a lot of validating things about why most of his original customer base abandoned him.
> the fact that the woke crowd objects to that while being fine with essentially the same statement levied against whites.
This reads like the classic "things right-wingers believe about leftists that have nothing to do with what leftists actually believe".
Someone who makes their living from their art adjusts it to the preferences of the remaining customer base. And levying hate at someone makes them like you and those you represent less. This is neither surprising nor is it a valid post-hoc justification for the original outrage at a perfectly moral statement.
> Could it perhaps have anything to do with the fact that that's a 4chan-originated dogwhistle that was hyper-viral at the time?
All that means is that everyone else is either racist against white people or too much of a coward to speak out of the racism of their peers. It doesn't make the statement worse or any less correct. Maybe instead of cancelling people for stating reasonable opinions that other people you hate also say, think hard about why you and your friends are not willing to say those things. Do you care more about your making statements in accordance with your morals or more about not being seen as part of the wrong tribe?
> The president of the most powerful country on earth and the richest man in the world say things like that all the time. Why the victim complex?
Even if that was true, it doesn't change the fact that the woke crowd objects to that while being fine with essentially the same statement levied against whites.