@obscurestar @glyph

To extend my argument to your analogy, imagine we're in a developer project where most people on the team think that it's not that problematic to include null pointer dereference—they think you shouldn't do it, but it's not that big a deal if it happens accidentally—and where there's various parts of the code base that are more or less important and people wanting to do various levels of bad code, from null pointer dereference through ridiculous code duplication to inconsistent indentation.

Your approach would be to refuse to allow any code from anybody who has ever proposed a null pointer dereference or something similar.

I believe this will not work, and would rather try to
1. use the fact that there are shades of grey to try and accept the lesser of two evils, e.g. people who use slightly better code, or in a part of the code base that isn't that important
2. explicitly distance our own position from their position on code safety and style, calling for these code practices to stop without refusing anything to do with them
3. try to get more people in the team to agree with us in the long term

In practice this might look like sharing a Jeff Geerling video with a note that says you disapprove of them and avoiding things that explicitly give him money, rather than refusing to link to or watch anything by him outright.

Now, I understand that this might be a biased way of presenting this, because this just seems reasonable to me. I think that in some cases, the disagreement between me and someone with a similar stance as you isn't over this principle per se, but over whether a line has been crossed, and how practical and effective, really, my solution is.
I think I am more pessimistic about how many people will agree with our assessment, and more optimistic about how easy it is to play this hedging game.