I don't think anyone here was saying that we should reduce people to a two-dimensional caricature of themselves.

I think the point that was trying to be made was that, this is something people should know about before they decided to unreservedly push this man as a saviour or as a hero, and that giving this knowledge to people allows them to decide how they feel about it, whether they are comfortable with it, and ultimately, be aware of it.

'Cancelling' public artists and figures is always about three things:

1) Reducing the effect, or putting into context, their platform. In other words: allowing people to be aware about the ideas creators hold -- there's almost always some kind of bleed-over -- and if that person tends to go on a soapbox, allowing people to be able to discern whether they want to listen based on this new fact that could be extremely relevant. For example, it would change your mind whether someone was talking about the nature of consent, based on whether they were known for being abusive and acting non-consensually with other people, no? That seems like a hugely important fact to know.

2) Allowing us to be aware and put into context the people that we, as a society, hold up -- people who for all intents and purposes can 'do no wrong'. And deciding whether or not we still want to consume those works, and hold them up on that pedestal, with that information.

3) If they are still alive, ensuring that they remain accountable for actions or beliefs that have harmed or will harm people. Ensuring people who are vulnerable and likely to interact with them, can be aware and avoid being harmed. This gives the public figure a choice: They can either push back against it and dig their heels in deeper, or they can take responsibility, grow as a person, and maybe even cast off or recant whatever made them act in such a way or believe such things. It allows them to introspect into what they've done, and gives them the opportunity to decide to become a better person. A wonderful example of this is Dan Harmon, who acted inappropriately towards staff under him, and did not realise it at the time because of his emotional state. He introspected to figure out why that happened, apologised in full, and has presumably taken steps and made himself more aware so he will not repeat those actions. In addition, staff around him can be more aware, and can more openly and safely broach the issue with him now if he does relapse, because of how he responded. What better can we ask for?!

It's not about destroying people, or encouraging people to see them as some monster, it's fundamentally about allowing people to choose how they want to interact with that person -- even in a parasocial way. It's about allowing choice, and allowing people to act with discretion, more than anything else.

Arguably, this encourages people to see them less as a two dimensional caricature. My reaction to this information was that this person was obviously very complex, and had both good ideas and bad ideas.

Interestingly enough, I always percieve people (like you) who so vehemently argue against spreading information like this, and allowing people to choose how they view public figures and interact with content that they have produced, as arguing this from fear. From the fear that acts that you have done will catch up with you. This might not be true, but it does make me wonder.