Only because it makes you look like a hypocrite and undercuts the stance you're taking in this thread. You imply others are tangentially supporting a white supremacist while admitting that you directly support a Rape of Nanking denier - the latter of which leaves you without a leg to stand on with respect to the former.
That doesn't make someone a hypocrite.
Someone saying "In an ideal world, we would consume stuff that doesn't support bad dudes doing bad stuff, and I've started to divest from some of this stuff, starting with stuff that it's easier for me to divest from because I have less desire for it to begin with" does not make them a hypocrite.
For example, if someone told you "I think people should try to make environmentally conscious decisions, such as not buying a Hummer" and then you learned that they occasionally flew home for Christmas, they wouldn't be a hypocrite either.
I try to not do business with companies and people who I think are a force for bad in the world. I am not perfect at it. I rarely drive and when I do it is a gas efficient hybrid, but I still need to buy from oil companies who support climate change denial. I try to avoid buying from companies who are strongly involved in regressive politics, but there have been cases where we've ordered Papa Johns pizzas for events or something because there aren't any obvious alternatives that meet our needs. I generally try to avoid creative works by people who make public names for themselves from being odious, but I don't always know that they are and on individual cases I need to make a judgment call about their level of involvement with the work, money they're getting from my consumption, and my baseline desire to see or read or watch the work. I could do more, and I try to always be doing more, but I haven't done everything. I'd like to lower my footprint and I take steps to that end, but I still eat meat. I try to mostly buy used clothing, and support union shops, even though it's not always obvious that "ethical" consumption actually results in aggregate social betterment in the garment industry. I do have a phone and a laptop, but I rarely upgrade if I can help it and do investigate the latest developments in CSR and products offering superior ethical sourcing practices when buying. I do programming for a living and so there's some essential tension between my job, my hobbies, and my desire to lower my footprint.
I mention all of these things because I'm not a "hypocrite" for having some complexities or imperfections in the ways I implement my principles. It's okay to make life changes incrementally, it's okay to make easy choices before you have to make hard ones. "Hypocrisy" is almost always a truly stupid allegation to make against somebody.
I don't castigate others for doing more or less than I do, although I encourage all people to try to make good decisions and really, truly disdain people whose approach to life is "I don't give a shit and I don't owe anyone anything". We're our own arbiters, and I would hope that people who want to reduce the level of badness in the world and absolve themselves from culpability in that badness try to take steps to do so. It does make sense to inform people who you think would benefit from information.
If someone is in a thread arguing "Who gives a shit, I think the alt-right is good and whiny baby SJWs should shut up about it #triggered much libs?", that's a lot different to someone saying "Jontron sucks, but I'm still excited for the game and don't really take these things into account", and that's a lot different to someone saying "This dampens my excitement, but I've ultimately decided to buy the game"
As it relates to the thread in question, I don't think A Hat in Time looks all that great on its own. As a result, I wouldn't be pre-ordering or buying it at launch or anything irrespective of anyone's involvement. It is possible I'd check it out, or just collect it, as it comes down in price or if someone buys me a copy or whatever. I haven't thought it through fully myself, so I don't have a huge position. I empathize that the devs are probably caught between a rock and a hard place: remove Jontron and get review bombed, keep Jontron and get criticized for culpability in his weirdo 4chan politics that he can't shut up about. It's a tough call. I don't blame anyone who considers this a disqualifying factor, I don't blame anyone who considers it not a disqualifying factor.
It would seem to me that Brazil's point in comparing the two and talking through his own decision-making process is reasonable, and that he's not undermining anything, he's speaking to the complexities of how humans make decisions.