Here's a rant my friend and I made together that I was going to turn into a tiktok rant but I can't be bothered, I give everyone who sees this post FULL PERMISSION to just copy and paste this shit. Like the entire thing below and pass it off as their own I want to see it everywhere /silly
I didn't have anyone else besides me and my friend Milky proof read it so if anything is yappy or out of place not fully spoken on I apologize
——————————————————————
One thing that always frustrates me is when I see someone say, "fiction doesn't affect reality," and the immediate response is, "What about propaganda?" as if that's some undeniable gotcha????
The relationship between fiction and reality is a lot more nuanced than people make it out to be, and using propaganda as a "gotcha" usually misses what people are actually trying to say. Propaganda itself isn't simply "fiction." It's the deliberate use of biased, misleading, or one-sided information with the specific goal of influencing public opinion, beliefs, or behavior. When most people say "fiction doesn't affect reality," usually they aren't literally arguing that stories have zero influence on people.
But also people who argue that fiction does affect reality aren't automatically wrong either, it's just complicated on how it does. History has given us plenty of examples. Older cartoons, films, and books often portrayed Black people, queer people, disabled people, and other marginalized groups through racist or prejudiced stereotypes. Those portrayals often help normalize prejudice because they reflect and reinforce the biases that already existed in our society. But that's exactly why I don't think propaganda is the perfect counterargument. Fiction can absolutely be used for propaganda, but that doesn't mean every fictional story functions as propaganda or has the same purpose. Intent, context, audience, and presentation all matter so that propaganda can even start to work.
Another argument that comes up constantly is people bringing up crimes that were supposedly "caused by fiction." I don't find those arguments convincing either. In the majority of those cases, the person responsible had far more going on than simply consuming a piece of media. Mental illness, abuse, social isolation, extremist beliefs, personal choices, and countless other factors are usually involved. Sometimes people even blame fictional media after committing crimes to push off the blame of what they did. If we immediately accept "the book made me do it" or "the game made me do it," we're letting people shift responsibility away from themselves and onto a fictional work, and in allowing that behavior genuine predators could get off easier, because "Oh these poor people were victimized by creeps posting these stories". People are still responsible for their actions, no amount of fiction should ever change that
This is why I think the entire debate is much more complicated than either side often admits and I think both sides often oversimplify the conversation and why people talk about it, anti's arent just raging puriteens trying to control you, most of the time, and people who are proship or darkshippers aren't just predators trying to groom and get off to children. There are reasonable arguments for saying fiction can affect reality. Stories have always been capable of affecting people in some way BUT There are also reasonable arguments for saying fiction does not affect reality in the way people often claim. Most people are capable of separating fiction from reality. Reading about murder doesn't make someone a murderer, playing violent games doesn't automatically make someone violent, and enjoying taboo fiction doesn't automatically mean someone supports those things in real life.
People can understand that something would be harmful or wrong in reality while still being comfortable exploring it in fiction. Those two ideas can exist at the same time. Fiction allows people to engage with uncomfortable or taboo topics without anyone actually being harmed, which is one of the main reasons people are often drawn to it. Humans have always been interested in things that are considered forbidden, disturbing, or socially unacceptable. That curiosity does not automatically reflect someone's beliefs or morals.
This is also why "it's gross" isn't a strong argument for censorship. The reason many things are illegal isn't simply because people dislike them; it's because they cause harm. Not everything considered immoral should be illegal, and not everything legal is necessarily moral. Morality and law can influence each other, but they are not the same thing and shouldn't necessarily be relied on for each other. (Expecially because some laws are really fucking stupid). Personally, I truly don't know where the exact line is, and I don't think anyone else does either. Morality is subjective. People process media differently. Human psychology is incredibly complicated. Just because something is considered "gross" doesn't automatically make it morally wrong or something that should be censored. Because if we did draw that line, who is doing it? Who are we giving the power to control everyone and what they make or consume? The government? No, no one should have that power. Likewise, simply saying it's just "fiction" doesn't erase the fact it can have harmful influence.
Different people respond to fiction differently. Some people are highly impressionable, like children. Some people may have very strong personal morals that remain unchanged regardless of what they consume or are told. Some people use dark fiction as a way to safely explore uncomfortable topics or cope through trauma because that's what works for them. Others avoid it because they know it negatively affects them. None of these experiences invalidate the others. I think this debate is difficult precisely because it doesn't have a clean answer.
I'm personally pro-fiction because I believe people should be allowed to engage with fictional content without automatically having their real-life morality judged. Because I don't think enjoying fictional taboo content is evidence that someone endorses those things in reality, I personally enjoy a lot of taboo subjects within fiction but I know for a fact I would never support it or encourage it. At the same time, I also understand why some people are uncomfortable with certain kinds of fiction, and they're completely within their rights to avoid it, criticize it, or not want people who do like it to interact with them and we shouldn't treat them horribly because of that and same goes for people who do like it, if you see someone like media that you find distasteful or immoral just block them it's 100 times easier than whatever else you're going to try and do and a lot less childish. At the end of the day, you can't control what other people enjoy. The internet is enormous, and people aren't going to stop creating or consuming fiction just because someone else finds it immoral. I think we'd all be better off focusing on our own boundaries instead of trying to police everyone else's.
We should absolutely be able to have conversations about fiction and how it works. Those discussions are important. But pretending this issue has one simple, objective answer ignores how complicated the human mind really is. People do not all respond to fiction the same way. We can acknowledge that fiction can have influence while also recognizing that people are capable of separating fantasy from reality. The answer to this isn't to police everyone else's interest but understand that discomfort alone should not determine what should or shouldn't exist
