It does because consistency implies application of logic, while inconsistency leaves the door open for all sorts of things. I know the latter is in the realm of realpolitik, but as I stated earlier, I'm arguing this matter based on principle. I am not a fan of Gergiev, neither am I committed to either side in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
The thing is... people will most likely
be consistent, in fact. That's because it's the individual who will define for himself his own criteria for his personal boycott -- consciously or unconsciously. There's myriad of complex rules or simple principles that you can create to describe the cases when you boycott an artist or not -- and it's all obviously arbitrary. Even if said person is not into rationalizing a detailed system for such a thing, the person will still be following his sentiment and intuition... because the arbitrariness of the act itself reveals if the person truly
cares or not about an issue and the artist's involvement, which varies from case to case. The boycott will always be sincere and self-justified. It's as simple as that.
Demanding "consistency" is actually a disguise for demanding "simplicity" and "clarity" instead -- asking for a well-defined set of rules that everybody must follow religiously, otherwise it'll trigger someone else's OCD. But why though? It's a private decision, so let the each individual do it freely, regardless whether it's spontaneous or ultra-complex decision-making process.
The only thing that needs consistency is the Law... because the law is not written to be optimal or nuanced, but rather predictable and stable in order to avoid the
judge's parciality. For a legal system, "legal certainly" is more important than finding a perfect hyper-personal solution for each case. But this order of priority is not the same for daily life.
