I'll entertain your scenario, even though I think it's based on emotional over reaction to something you simply don't like.
...However, I don't think the comedian will be the significantly contributing factor there - the hateful nature of those people is. ...
I think you're missing the point here. A person might use a similar structure, say the gun debate, as a way of setting a point of reference for 'measuring purposes'. We can now work backwards and see more where things change to be unethical from a point of view. Your example is "hate speech" is a bit further down the road from where I was fishing for as an example, I was thinking more along the lines as derogatory jokes about gays or based on race. Hate speech is different than just slurs because hate speech incites action.
I think we can agree hate speech is unethical and that certainly would be something to avoid in an act. Lets move more to the grey area;
Louie CK's latest set where he disparages trans people, the Parkland students etc. is closer to where I was aiming. We can agree that this is not hate speech?
He isn't trying to give of any legitimacy to him or his ideas (intent), often the defense to the things comedians say is that they are comedians and they tell jokes. These are actions trying to disassociate the source of any responsibility from the negative outcomes towards those groups. These actions still punch down at groups though. I don't think just because someone may lack the punching power or they think they do that it would be okay for them to punch people who are getting hit from other areas for the thing being joked about.
To those affected people the contribution may be more than others would rate. Certainly his contribution has some effect on an Overton Window type situation for the masses concerning what we can joke about. It is interesting to see what slurs/images are allowed when others are not. I would lean towards CK's act being unethical.
Gilbert Goddfried 9/11 jokes after the planes hit...unethical or ethical? There was a big deal about his joke when it happened. Almost ended his career.
I think a closer comparison to what I am looking for may be in how Sam Harris operates his media. He often has another scientist in some field like physics discussing ideas out of their expertise. He uses his position as a neurosurgeon and skeptic to give him legitimacy in areas he has he has no formal training in while undermining experts in other fields. Harris is certainly trying to blur the line where his legitimacy is concerned, are his actions ethical in your eyes?
To be clear this is different from what Bill Nye does, he defers to the experts knowledge and sources in the areas he is not trained in. To bad he isn't a better debater or public speaker.
In rare occasions someone will be scammed. It's pretty rare, though. The new age market is a multi-billion dollar industry. There's no way that kind of money is moving around with the number of instances we see on the news. Generally speaking those predators go after people who already believe, and/or who are grieving, because belief and grief are both easy to manipulate.
I think "scam"by intent is unethical in general or it at least denotes bad intent. I mean if someone believes in what they are doing it operates in the same realm of ethical from their point of view. Most people know what they can and cannot claim by now so they employ warnings that say not proven etc. when concerning the claims but they still sell them saying things like "promotes creativity" ,"gives energy", "healing". They may be ethical in their own eyes for sure.
Is a crystal with a disclaimer that says not proven but still claims "heals" just as ethical as claim of "crystal that heals cancer" that also has a disclaimer that says not proven? One claim definitely has more potency concerning the targeted group and the end effect. If you google either "crystal healing" or "crystal heals cancer" you get tons of new age sites.
What about the ethics behind the claims "heals" versus "gives you energy"?
To me all those ideas are hung with the same hook.
The "term new age" is pretty broad encompassing some pretty disparate views under that term. If you had a specific example thats more of what you wanted to illustrate please go ahead.
What happens when someone who's a believer in pseudo-science (Which, honestly, is basically everyone), sees a pseudo-science based performance? Nothing changes - they still buy into bracelets with 'holographic technology' that improve your balance or 'detoxing'. What happens when someone who's not a believer in pseudo-science sees a pseudo-science based performance? They say, "Well that's clearly horse pucky, I wonder how he did that."
I get your part about peoples beliefs not changing much and agree.
Our point of views differ on whether the contribution is significant or not and the strength of the outcomes. These areas are a bit subjective and hard to measure.
You earlier pointed out that movies like fight club, a lower bar of credibility...its not trying to blur the lines, still get people using its language to (ironically) justify their stances. I don't see how a magic act trying to blur the lines of credibility doesn't have any similar contribution here from a movie save for its reach. If thats the case it is a claim that it doesn't punch hard or not sufficient contribution and that still doesn't change the outcome for me that they shouldn't punch. If its people are going to punch anyways (part of your stance) then my position is the same.
The only time I could see it being the responsibility of the performer would be if they are presenting it "as real proof" and harping on that idea, and that scenario strays into the realm of being a fraud.
What I think would be the far more likely outcome is that someone might hear a presentation based on pseudo-science and then try it themselves, see it doesn't work, and decide that the performer was full of it.
Thats why my examples are are in the grey area to the other side of fraud/scam or hatespeech etc. Yeah we beat that idea of intent (fraud/scam) to death and looked a bit at outcome (hate speech's outcomes) because they're point of reference more easily agreed upon. We have a pretty decent understanding of each other position concerning magic acts I assume by now.