I'm so close to having a coherent thought about this, but I find it very interesting how violent behaviour is viewed in characters, versus other sorts of antisocial behaviour (-phobias, -isms, etc). maybe it's the perceived separation from reality? because if you're lucky, nobody in your life will ever slit anyone's throat, so you get to view it as an abstract and fantastical action. it's pure play! whereas if a character says something like "you look fat in those jeans", BAM! instant hatred, because now you can link it to painful moments in your own life. even though the people you've heard those words from (moms, aunties, grandmas) are probably people that you still love.
which is why you get all these books that embrace hyper violence but flinch away from any -phobias and -isms, because that would be uncomfortable.
what makes the dissonance especially jarring is that viewing violence as abstract is a privilege. in Canada and the States, we get to sit comfortably in our homes while our governments fund weapons and send troops to inflict violence overseas. and sure, we can watch a genocide live-streamed on social media, but it still feels distant.
don't confuse this as me saying violence shouldn't be written about! everything should be written about! it's more me wondering why violence feels comfortable to write about, when arguably milder social offences do not.
