Viewpoint "fiction doesn't affect reality"

[bitterblue]

an argument i've seen all over the internet, especially some darker sides of tumblr and twitter fandoms, and for a good while, i agreed with it until i saw someone say... i don't remember the exact words but the crux was basically that subliminally, we all agree that fiction does affect reality. otherwise, we wouldn't have our children read stories about virtue and justice so they can learn to differentiate between right and wrong on a more subconscious level

i suppose one could argue against this by saying children's psyches are inherently malleable which is why it's easier to influence their opinion; adults on the other hand typically have pretty firm and resolute morals. i only partially agree with the latter because there are always people who resort to death threats and other insolent behaviour when you insult their favourite shows/ships (let's be honest, shipwars always get ugly) which clearly shows they take fiction a little too seriously...

so personally, i believe one needs to have a certain level of emotional maturity to completely separate fiction from reality, and i'm extremely curious: what're your guys' opinions on this?

 

[Craftsdwarf]

I personally highly value the separation of fiction and reality, but yes, it must be taught. My parents were very aware of the media my brother and I consumed, often engaging with it themselves and placing restrictions until they felt as though we were mature enough to get it, which is why they were perfectly fine with me and my brother watching R rated movies like The Warriors and Gladiator as young teens. I really do respect them for that, but unfortunately not everyone is so lucky.

However, my upbringing has led to my belief that while children are malleable, media is not the only thing that affects them. A child can consume all the morally righteous media in the world, but the reality around them will affect them far more than fiction ever could. We can learn by punishments and reward, and media can do neither, but authority figures like parents or teachers can. I watched lots of things aimed at children growing up, but I can't say I particularly learned much from it, or at least, what I did learn from it is nothing next to what I took from my parents. I watched Power Rangers as a kid but I didn't learn a damn thing from it's moralizing and lessons, or little PSAs at the end with the Rangers telling me not to smoke or whatever. I can however quote a bunch of things I've been told over the years by my parents and have internalized. I don't really think fiction can match up to that.

Fiction can affect reality, but not on any broad sense like the 'if you consume bad fiction you are a bad person' kind of mentalities you'll get sometimes, like people who refuse to engage with fans of Steven Universe because it's pro-facist (random example, but still). Rather than saying 'fiction affects reality', I would more say 'fiction can affect individuals'. I think you're right regarding emotional maturity, though I'd factor in ignorance as well. We live in a time period where information is readily accessible and we're more aware of the world and its people than ever before. In the past it was harder to learn these things, so popular media could affect perceptions on a bigger scale despite showing only one side. Like, I can understand how media portraying the autistic savant might dominate the popular idea when most people haven't interacted with an autistic person and don't know anything about the topic, thus the autistic savant might become their primary idea or even standard for people with some degree of autism, which at one time period might have been progressive in that it was any positive movement at all, but nowadays not so much. But ignorance isn't responded to by just accepting 'fiction affects reality', be that through censorship of perceived problematic media or policing of the affected through fandom. I like to think ignorance is addressed the spread of information and learning other perspectives. And I do think lots of bad media related behaviors you can point at (like people idolizing characters who are bad people or holding up movies like Fight Club that probably shouldn't be seen as ideal to take inspiration from) stem from the inability of people to separate fiction and reality, rather than fiction affecting reality, per se, because most people engage in the same media without issue.

Also, if you haven't seen it, Sarah Z's video on Pro vs Anti Shippers, it may be almost 2 hours long but I think you'd find it interesting, or at least very relevant to your mention of shippers and Tumblr specifically.

 

[GojiBean]

As weird as it is to think about it like this, it's actually the opposite.

Reality influences fiction. Always has. Always will.

Why?

Because reality came (comes) first.

Fiction as a concept didn't even exist until human imagination gave it form. And what gave the human imagination the fuel it needs to create fiction?

Reality.

Someone looked at fire and thought "what if humans could use it without the need for fuel?" Now we have magic.

Someone looked at a lizard and asked "what if it could fly?" Now we have dragons.

Someone looked at the stars and wondered "what if there were other worlds like ours out there, and the same kinds of political problems and the hunger for power existed in even worse ways than here?" Now we have Star Wars.

Reality has always been the foundation of fiction. You literally can't come up with a fictional idea if you're not inspired first by reality. It's a direct progression.

Fiction, on the other hand, quite literally cannot influence reality.

Why? Because it's fiction. By definition, it's not real.

Take the example you paraphrased about "why else would we have our children read stories of virtue and justice?" The answer is simple: Because we know there is virtue and justice in the world. That's reality. They're both part of human nature already. The only valid question is how we choose to introduce it to our children. And the medium we choose happens to be fictional stories.

That's a coincidence. Not a causality.

What that person you were paraphrasing doesn't seem to understand (and why their argument is a bad example to their own intended point) is that teaching children by way of fiction does not make fiction the origin of what those children are learning from it. The elements of virtue and justice are already part of human nature. They exist. They're reality. Making the choice to use fictional stories as examples for teaching does not change the fact that virtue and justice are part of reality first.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. Everyone's free to interpret it how they will. And I'm admittedly a bit of a hardcore realist so I'm not too much fun at parties where debates are meant to be light hearted and fun. Lol.

Cheers!

~ GojiBean

 

[The Great Sage]

People are influenced by media. I said to my ex-girlfriend when the show 'Dexter' was released that there would be copycat killings, and there were. It's a well studied phenomenon in criminal psychology that the more widely reported a serial killing or mass murder is, the more of a spike in crime there will be. It's crazy shit.

I should say that some people are influenced. I was using 'people' as a collective. It might not be most of us - but it's enough that we have to beware.

 

[Dreamtique]

Certainly an interesting topic but I am not going to dive too deep into this. To sum it up I guess fiction is a product of our mind, I don't think it is far fetch to say it affects us. I think we tend to overestimate our ability to resist influences from the world around us.

I am sure you can think of one of a few pieces of well written fiction that made you feel something (sadness or anything).
[I think DanganronpaV3 put it quite nicely, a well written piece of fiction has to contain some truth in it(like a good lie). I will be surprised if that is not the reason this discussion was brought up.]

 

[Merciless Medic]

For me, fiction affects the perception of reality of the individual just as much as reality in the real world affects fiction.

Too many times I have seen kids act like characters they admire in TV shows and movies (I was one of them).

Too many times I have seen teenagers and young adults take inspiration from their beloved characters (usually villains) and do something they'd do in reality for the attention and as a cry for help. Remember those two 12-year-old girls who killed in the name of Slenderman and they had believed so whole-heartedly that a mansion filled with Creepypasta existed?

That was fiction (obviously), yet they believed it was real. They let the ideas of death and murder influence them from something fictional to kill their own sister/friend.

I was sucked into the world of Creepypasta from the ages of 12-16. It gave me someplace to belong and all the fucked up shit we can think of can be expressed without fear or worry of being seen as evil or "needing help". I was denied the ability to express my goth phase in my pre-teen and teenager years, so I delved into something else far worse to compensate and to spite my mother. Now, I avoid Creepypasta like the plague while still dealing with topics such as torture, murder, indoctrination, assault/abuse, and all that because I have a much more mature mindset when dealing with them. I don't romanticize/glorify them like I did when I was younger. While I still have my goth side, I have things to express that now. I have someplace I belong, I understand myself, and I have the mental faculties to keep reality and fiction separate. These last three things are the things I believe people may lack when they let fiction affect them too much.

While we may use our imaginations to make these fictional worlds, that isn't to say that these fictional worlds and characters can't also sway the impressionable. What I mean by impressionable are those who are needing a place to belong when they have no such thing, a place to escape to when their life becomes difficult, a place to be themselves when they feel like they can't express themselves. Impressionable doesn't just mean those who are weak-minded, but also those who are confused (especially if they are going through puberty and the hormonal issues; my brother and I were those types of kids), alone and seeking validation and a sense of belonging, and when they don't know themselves or how to express themselves. This could come from a variety of reasons.

We make fiction to escape into, and sometimes the people we share our fiction with blur the lines between what's real and what's not and they become dependent on the world they escape to. For people who are realists or those who generally have a good head on their shoulders and don't let pressure sway their decisions and what they learn, they may not understand. I don't expect them to and I'm frankly glad they don't have to struggle with that. For those who didn't have much of a parental guidance, we learned through the media with what is right and wrong, what's okay, and all that.

My brother and I when we were seven and eight would play Splinter Cell on the OG Xbox and we'd practice the chokehold on each other. We thought it was funny, especially when the enemies fell over after we killed them. Luckily, we were scared into not doing it anymore (and that was just because we had our dad yell at us in public since we were showing off our 'skillz' in public... Which was wonderful on our end XD). Then again, my brother and I were shown the world of M-rated games (Halo 1 and 2, dad playing Bioshock) when we were around the ages of 3-6. The ragdoll physics of the grunts and elites when they died from a grenade or exploding Needler round was hilarious.

Yeah, we were pretty morbid.

But we separated that game from reality for the most part because there were aliens involved. The only reason why we started doing the chokehold from Splinter Cell was because it was pretty realistic (as far as our young, child minds can see) and it's what got me into spies and assassins in the first place.

I'm lucky that didn't evolve into something much worse, especially and thankfully that our parents aided in teaching us what was right and wrong and that death can very much happen (as we found out from our fish dying. That was a sad day).

I don't think we could have become much worse individuals later, it all just depended on our mindsets then. I have a block in my brain that prevents me from hurting someone unless I'm severely threatened. I can't punch someone. Slapping someone causes my muscles to fight against me and I end up with wimpy slaps because my subconscious doesn't want to hurt anyone.

All that aside, fiction has very much influenced my life. I have learned more from Pokemon and Paper Mario than I have ever learned from high school. It has given me niches and people to hang out with and belong. And now, I'm making an original sci-fi world with some magic involved because of all the fiction that has influenced my life and I hope my future book can influence the lives of those who read it (in a good way... and once I start making the book lol).

It's a cycle. First came reality, then came fiction, then that fiction affects others perceptions and biases, and then those perceptions become reality, and then the cycle continues with reality making more fiction. It's the cycle of expressing ideas. It's how this always worked.

 

[Darkmaster006]

Those who say fiction does not affect reality—or that you can separate fiction and reality in a clear-cut way—are, most of the time, simply looking for ways to justify their unethical/immoral/shameful interests or likes. It's a shield, and a lousy one at that. The same argument will be used by people who partake in harmful relationship dynamics but only as a 'play': it's real, and the limits are never clear-cut (or are supposed to be clear-cut... until they aren't!). Fiction, media... everything we consume (cultural norms, practices, habits, etc.) affects reality, but saying that it doesn't serves to justify some interest at hand, just look for which in each case. Even adults aren't free from this, even if it might be harder to influence them (though, honestly, it depends on the person and their situation), but influence could easily be unconscious. Think about addictions: an addicted man never wants to confront that he's, indeed, an addict, and will justify it in every possible way.

 

[Craftsdwarf]

Those who say fiction does not affect reality—or that you can separate fiction and reality in a clear-cut way—are, most of the time, simply looking for ways to justify their unethical/immoral/shameful interests or likes. It's a shield, and a lousy one at that. The same argument will be used by people who partake in harmful relationship dynamics but only as a 'play': it's real, and the limits are never clear-cut (or are supposed to be clear-cut... until they aren't!). Fiction, media... everything we consume (cultural norms, practices, habits, etc.) affects reality, but saying that it doesn't serves to justify some interest at hand, just look for which in each case. Even adults aren't free from this, even if it might be harder to influence them (though, honestly, it depends on the person and their situation), but influence could easily be unconscious. Think about addictions: an addicted man never wants to confront that he's, indeed, an addict, and will justify it in every possible way.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Someone uses ‘fiction is separate from reality’ as justification for real abuse, and this somehow reflects badly on any who say it based on your assumption? Aside from being very reductive and baseless, it’s also potentially dangerous. In your example is someone who doesn’t actually care about the ideology they espouse, yet you hold anyone who says the same thing to that standard. This example is an abuser who is likely only hiding behind that ideology because they believe that a community who shares those beliefs will accept them. I don’t think that inherently reflects back on the community. In fact, by assuming a person based on what they say, the risk of drawing lines in the sands and making the beliefs of you or your community so clear is that abusers will better know what to say and believe to fit in.

People who intend to do harm aren’t going to espouse their true ideology, they’re going to lie, they’re going to say whatever is convenient, and they’re going to take part in communities that they believe will accept them. It doesn’t matter whether they say ‘fiction affects reality’ or the inverse. By assuming something of a person based on preconceived beliefs, you might happen to find like minded people, sure, but the people you seem to be envisioning likely don’t care about your beliefs one way or the other. Actions outweigh ideology, but I feel as though what you’re saying puts ideology in front of action, assuming how someone might act without even attempting to think of them as an individual. You can be creeped out or disgusted by any unethical/shameful preferences you want, and even refuse to engage with people with them, but I don’t think someone having those preferences, and someone acting out abuse or harm, is remotely the same.

 

[bitterblue]

Rather than saying 'fiction affects reality', I would more say 'fiction can affect individuals'

And I do think lots of bad media related behaviors you can point at (like people idolizing characters who are bad people or holding up movies like Fight Club that probably shouldn't be seen as ideal to take inspiration from) stem from the inability of people to separate fiction and reality, rather than fiction affecting reality, per se, because most people engage in the same media without issue.

Also, if you haven't seen it, Sarah Z's video on Pro vs Anti Shippers, it may be almost 2 hours long but I think you'd find it interesting, or at least very relevant to your mention of shippers and Tumblr specifically.

oh :o i hadn't thought of it like this before but i agree with this point of view! and i'll definitely check out her video when i have time, thank you (:

Reality has always been the foundation of fiction. You literally can't come up with a fictional idea if you're not inspired first by reality. It's a direct progression.

Fiction, on the other hand, quite literally cannot influence reality.

Why? Because it's fiction. By definition, it's not real.

What that person you were paraphrasing doesn't seem to understand (and why their argument is a bad example to their own intended point) is that teaching children by way of fiction does not make fiction the origin of what those children are learning from it. The elements of virtue and justice are already part of human nature. They exist. They're reality. Making the choice to use fictional stories as examples for teaching does not change the fact that virtue and justice are part of reality first.

this is an extremely interesting take! so you're saying—for the lack of better word—"bad media" isn't what influences "good" people even if they indulge in it but "bad" people who're already involved in the real life extensions of "bad media" are the ones who engage in it? e.g. if someone watches a movie about a serial killer and ends up going on a murder spree themselves, it's not that they were influenced by the media but that they were already predisposed to committing murder?

 

[Syntra]

I think it isn't black and white. Reality and fiction are mutually reinforcing. Fiction does, in fact, very much exist! Not in the same way a loaf of bread does, but it is undeniable that the stories we consume occupy our thoughts and may influence the way we think. Like, when you read about women doing housework all the time, it does instill the idea that this is the default. It's also a reflection of reality because, historically, women were responsible for these things more than men. Conversely, subverting these ideas in fiction can lead to irl realizations that it doesn't have to be this way. It's only one example, of course, and I am not claiming that every piece of media needs to be didactic. I'm just citing it as an example.

I'm also someone who enjoys supremely fucked up shit, though. Lately, my writing has revolved around religious guilt and cannibalism and I'm certain that a lot of people would clutch their pearls. Suffice to say, I do not actually eat people irl. I've never even felt the slightest twinge of curiosity regarding that. I think that, with these topics, it's helpful to recognize what draws you to them in the first place and be honest about it. For me, it's the intensity. It's more fun for me to write about reeeeal crazy shit than, you know, characters enjoying their breakfast. I also think that if the situation is cartoonishly exaggerated (like what I described) it's actually easier to keep the reality/fiction boundary intact. I also don't believe that children are uniquely predisposed to being overly influenced by fiction. Anecdotal, I know, but I literally grew up on the Silent Hill series, and aside from my lingering love for horror, there aren't any consequences that I know of. Never once did I feel inclined to beat someone over the head with a rusty pipe, despite playing the first one at the ripe age of seven. More than anything else, I believe that the copycat killers etc. are people with a particular kind of personality who encountered the 'right' impulse at the 'right' time. I mean, certain killers have been inspired by innocuous songs that only sounded murderous in their heads.

 

[nerdy tangents]

As no one else has brought it up I will use an example of a recent podcast I listened to which very clearly illustrates this phenomena.

I will start with context it is a Harry Potter podcast and they recently went to Albania to record an episode as a subscriber goal (ie “if we get so many subscribers we will take a trip to Albania and record.)

Now neither host had ever been to Albania, in fact at least one of them couldn’t point to it on a map. The only experience they had with Albania at all was what was written in the Harry Potter series. Which kinda made Albania sound like this semi-scary abandoned place where no one sensible should visit (it was a hiding spot for the villain)

Now they get to Albania and they do a several minute intro on what they learned about Albania prior to arriving, once they arrived, and (most important for this discussion) what their friends and family thought of Albania before they left.

So to keep this a little short Albania was a fairly isolationist nation for a lot of fairly recent memory (I believe in the 60s to early 80s but don’t quote me on that). So a lot of people had it in their head it was somewhere near Russia and you weren’t actually allowed to visit.

But when asked couldn’t really pinpoint How or Why they thought that, it was just an assumption they had. Now older generations might have got it from word of mouth or the news, but younger generations very likely got it from their parents OR from stories like Harry Potter.

So all this long thing to say that fiction often reflects our own unconscious bias and in doing so reinforces or creates biases we might not be fully aware of until they are challenged by real life experiences.

I am sure if you thought about assumptions you have right now that fall outside your lives experiences you would find a lot of things you “know” but can’t really pinpoint why or how.

Maybe you also think Albania is in Russia for instance (it’s actually near Greece and from what the podcast said a lovely place to visit).

But that kind of proves that it’s not so much “I can’t literally distinquish the difference between a story about wizards and magic Nazis and real life.” But that the magical story reflects a lot of the authors real world biases and the older you get the more you notice because your own lived experiences expand enough that you can pinpoint when the stuff you read doesn’t line up with the stuff you experience IRL

 

[The Great Sage]

As no one else has brought it up I will use an example of a recent podcast I listened to which very clearly illustrates this phenomena.

I've noticed that you often spell out interesting points of view in discussions like this. Good for you for keeping your eyes open.

 

[Darkmaster006]

This doesn’t make sense to me. Someone uses ‘fiction is separate from reality’ as justification for real abuse, and this somehow reflects badly on any who say it based on your assumption? Aside from being very reductive and baseless, it’s also potentially dangerous. In your example is someone who doesn’t actually care about the ideology they espouse, yet you hold anyone who says the same thing to that standard. This example is an abuser who is likely only hiding behind that ideology because they believe that a community who shares those beliefs will accept them. I don’t think that inherently reflects back on the community. In fact, by assuming a person based on what they say, the risk of drawing lines in the sands and making the beliefs of you or your community so clear is that abusers will better know what to say and believe to fit in.

People who intend to do harm aren’t going to espouse their true ideology, they’re going to lie, they’re going to say whatever is convenient, and they’re going to take part in communities that they believe will accept them. It doesn’t matter whether they say ‘fiction affects reality’ or the inverse. By assuming something of a person based on preconceived beliefs, you might happen to find like minded people, sure, but the people you seem to be envisioning likely don’t care about your beliefs one way or the other. Actions outweigh ideology, but I feel as though what you’re saying puts ideology in front of action, assuming how someone might act without even attempting to think of them as an individual. You can be creeped out or disgusted by any unethical/shameful preferences you want, and even refuse to engage with people with them, but I don’t think someone having those preferences, and someone acting out abuse or harm, is remotely the same.

I don't see how it's baseless, given how I've seen it countless times to defend things I don't want to mention. It is reductive in the sense that I chose to focus on that and nothing else, because it's the topic I thought was most important. (I do think your point on abusers hiding is correct, and it's one of the things I was highlighting, I concur. But I don't think 'making clear lines' will make it easier: I could say that 'making diffuse lines' will make it easier, since you can just basically shrug everything off and that's about it. Doesn't really depend on that.) That's why I wrote 'most of the time', and that's also why I placed the focus on how this ideology is actually used to further harmful practices. I'm just saying one has to be careful with such propositions and such tendencies to hide everything behind a veil and to hold nothing and no one accountable, which is the case with 'fiction doesn't affect reality' when it's used in the cases I'm talking about (and most of the times I've seen it, it's used like that). If it's used in "harmless" ways, then I don't see any need to focus on it beyond mere intellectual discussion. Not only that, but you can never really know what someone's "true beliefs" are (even assuming that all people have true beliefs they agree to or they have beliefs they agree to and they actually follow). I'm not saying be paranoic, I'm just say, use common sense and be wary of shady stuff like this, that's all. As for preferences... red flags are a thing, always be careful. Sometimes, one doesn't need to 'act' in the sense of abuse or harm directly to actually harm. We are probably talking about different "preferences", but it'd get heavy if we went into specifics.

 

[bitterblue]

let's talk about some heavier stuff then

a couple months ago, in the editing/anime community on instagram, this one art account gained traction because they were drawing adult x minor stuff. all ocs or fictional characters, no irl people. a lot of people were claiming they draw nc-17 stuff too but when i had a look, most of it was pretty harmless (or as harmless as you can get through drawn implications of minors' crushes on adults)

they used the argument "fiction doesn't affect reality" and said that since their art isn't hurting anyone, no one should try to sjw them

i agree with Darkmaster006 on this: the concern for minors they interacted with irl. some people use art as a way to express their own trauma and when it comes down to that, then the audience's discomfort does. not. matter. because what you see online can be curated to your own comfort. the problem is: how would anyone know what the artist's true intentions are?

but couldn't that also be said for people who enjoyed reading lolita or almost transparent blue or (for the anime-enthusiasts out there) enjoyed watching cross ange? "why do you draw that?" "okay, well, why do you read that? why do you watch that?" and this is where Syntra 's point about intellectual awareness is extremely important. the answer to "does consuming this media make me a bad person?" comes from an honest internal discussion of "are you a threat to your peers? should people have a reason to be wary of you?"

 

[Darkmaster006]

let's talk about some heavier stuff then

a couple months ago, in the editing/anime community on instagram, this one art account gained traction because they were drawing adult x minor stuff. all ocs or fictional characters, no irl people. a lot of people were claiming they draw nc-17 stuff too but when i had a look, most of it was pretty harmless (or as harmless as you can get through drawn implications of minors' crush on adults)

they used the argument "fiction doesn't affect reality" and said that since their art isn't hurting anyone, no one should try to sjw them

the whole situation made me uncomfortable but more than that, i agree with Darkmaster006 on this: i was worried for the minors they interacted with irl. they already had no issue drawing/picturing illegal stuff, how would anyone know if the teenagers they met irl were safe? i understand some people use art as a way to express their own trauma and when it comes down to that, then the audience's discomfort does. not. matter. because what you see online can be curated to your own comfort. the problem is: how would anyone know what the artist's true intentions are?

but couldn't that also be said for people who enjoyed reading lolita or almost transparent blue or (for the anime-enthusiasts out there) enjoyed watching cross ange? "why do you draw that?" "okay well, why do you read that? why do you watch that?" and this is where Syntra 's point about intellectual awareness is extremely important. the answer to "does consuming this media make me a bad person?" comes from an honest internal discussion of "are you a threat to your peers? should people have a reason to be wary of you?"

Yeah, cases similar to that or worse ("nsfw" of kids' cartoons, etc.) are what I had in mind. Again, I do think that if you watch something, you won't necessary emulate that, nor is it a correlation, it's complex, as you well say in the last paragraph. But patterns do exist, and being wary, especially if you're in a harmful environment or on an unstable psychological state, is necessary. Not to mention that kids today use the internet so freely, you can't know what they're watching, how they're interacting, with whom, etc.

I mean, you see it in more 'light-hearted' ways when people start copying—consciously or unconsciously—stuff (expressions, for example) from TV shows and so on, to a point where that becomes the new normal. And let's not even talk about how the standarization of accents or languages are making kids grow up in an environment where sometimes even their mother tongue is erased, not to mention their accent.

 

[The Great Sage]

I believe that the copycat killers etc. are people with a particular kind of personality who encountered the 'right' impulse at the 'right' time. I mean, certain killers have been inspired by innocuous songs that only sounded murderous in their heads.

I agree with this, and it's why I think that censorship of antisocial (murder, rape, torture, ect.) behaviour should be a thing. The trouble is who do you trust to be a censor... because I can't think of anyone suitable for such power and responsibility.

Most people might not need it - most people might see it as an infringement on their personal freedoms; but if restricting access to mature themes keeps that 0.01% of people from going off the deep end, then I think it's a good trade. Make people get a license or something for 'adult' themed entertainment. Humanity is at a point where sociology is getting twisted into a pretzel due to how modern people live their lives, and I think that culture has to bend with it or else we're in for some tough times. I'm tired of people gunning down others or devolving into sexist redpillers. Something has to give.

 

[Lorsh]

I agree with this, and it's why I think that censorship of antisocial (murder, rape, torture, ect.) behaviour should be a thing. The trouble is who do you trust to be a censor... because I can't think of anyone suitable for such power and responsibility.

Most people might not need it - most people might see it as an infringement on their personal freedoms; but if restricting access to mature themes keeps that 0.01% of people from going off the deep end, then I think it's a good trade. Make people get a license or something for 'adult' themed entertainment. Humanity is at a point where sociology is getting twisted into a pretzel due to how modern people live their lives, and I think that culture has to bend with it or else we're in for some tough times. I'm tired of people gunning down others or devolving into sexist redpillers. Something has to give.

so a horrible nanny state that deprives people of entertainment, very cool

 

[The Great Sage]

so a horrible nanny state that deprives people of entertainment, very cool

I was wondering when this exact thing would be said.

No, not a horrible nanny state. The idea would be a compassionate form of government oversight that works selflessly to help people overcome the quirks of human psychology which we've begun to uncover and understand.

You hear it all the time - mental health initiatives are not doing the trick right now, and it's only getting worse. People - lots of people need help, and if this stupid fucking pandemic has taught us anything it is that a huge subset of people will aggressively resist being helped.

So yeah, in an ideal world the government could deal with deciding who is mature enough to handle horrible shit and who is susceptible to negative influence and mandate certain restrictions accordingly. This is basically fascism, and would be abused in the real world with very little doubt. It's nice to dream though.

 

[nerdy tangents]

So I think it’s less about media consumption and more about how society itself treats certain behaviors.

Censorship isn’t going to do a damn thing if the person is raised in abusive household or in a community where aggressive behavior is excused as “boys being boys”.

A lot of terrorists or mass shooters are more likely to be violent misogynists with a history of domestic abuse then they are to be followers of specific media.

I mean sure you will ocassionally get people who claim to be inspired by incel forums or specific celebrities or hell even works of fiction.

But that is not a problem with the media. That is a problem with

1. we don’t take domestic violence or violence against women as a serious precursor to mass violence.

2. we do not tear down masculine ideals that prohibit men from seeking mental health or acknowledging abusive behaviors in their backgrounds

3. we make access to weapons and other materials for violence entirely to easy.

So yeah in the list of things we need to change so that violent people can not longer inflict violence upon the rest of us changing media is pretty far down the list. I would say maybe fact checking misinformation on medical issues would be a slightly higher priority.

Less censoring antisocial behavior and more stop demonizing mental health services and conflating masculinity with toxic behavior.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Oh I just remembered so I actually did work in a library for 15 years and we had a handful of patrons who clearly were unable to distinquish fiction from reality.

The vast majority of them were perfectly harmless and were allowed to use our facilities the same as everyone else. They might make a few people uncomfortable but it is a public service and they have as much right to use it as anyone else.

Then we had one guy who was ultimately banned from the premise. Now I couldn’t begin to tell you what his media consumption was like (I don’t remember him looking at anything violent or even particularly crude). He might have skirted the line on crude but it’s been a few years.

in any event his dangerousness manifested in stalking one of the employees and treating others like his personal secretaries. He would refuse to take his medication and go on paranoid rants to thin air about people stalking him and other things.

None of that would have been helped by use putting a block on the kind of books he read or websites he visited. Cuz he had a mental illness that would have found plots in the shape of the pavement or something.

Now he is admittedly an extreme example and I’m not saying violent men are all necessarily mentally ill. I am saying that the way to address violence is the same way you address mental illness. By getting people professional help and by opening up dialogue about what kind of behaviors are warning signs and what kind of behaviors need to be addressed when they crop up.

 

[The Great Sage]

This is a story of a Canadian man who was inspired to kill a guy by the show 'Dexter': Mark Twitchell

This is an article about serial killers and their motivations. If you skim to the first instance you see the word 'celebrity' you'll hit the bit that I think is relevant: The social study of serial killers

This is a topic I can get long winded about because it's so interesting, but I am going to curb that urge just a bit. I want to say that the modern norm of being absolutely bombarded by information (movies, internet, books, music) all the time is so fascinating. We're just learning what it's does to people over time and the results so far are hilarious. I love discussing this stuff.

My thesis so far is; people will be affected by the media they consume, therefore society must be aware of the effect this will have sociologically.

If you release a show about a glorified serial killer, don't be so surprised when someone does it in real life.

 

[Daisie]

On a completely technical level, no... Fiction, by itself, does not affect reality. If a piece of fiction is placed in a room by itself, reality is no different around it.
The only way fiction has any ability at all to change reality is via the minds of people, and that's pretty indirect. I wouldn't blame the fiction for that...
Fiction doesn't affect reality, but rather people do, and fiction affects people! It's not the fiction's responsibility whether or not the people are willing to distinguish it from reality, it's the people's.
Sadly though, the human psyche can be damaged or bent in ways such as that fiction affects people in a negative manner - that's just an unfortunate reality.

 

[bitterblue]

If you release a show about a glorified serial killer, don't be so surprised when someone does it in real life.

i haven't watched dexter but maybe hannibal is a close comparison. i watched all 3 seasons and didn't get any urges to go kill or cannibalise anyone; i watched cmbyn and ghostland, and didn't suddenly get the urge to fraternise with minors; 13 reasons why didn't motivate me to end my life despite my mental health issues

regardless of all this, am i gonna rewatch cmbym or ghostland? maybe if i want to cry, sure. am i going to continue watching shows with violence and gore? absolutely

i had the mental capacity to compartmentalise my consumed media as "not real, won't harm you or the people around you." if i wasn't influenced by the media i consumed then doesn't that prove that people who are influenced by it had dormant fantasies from the start? the media acted as a catalyst to desires that would've surfaced eventually

i've been doing more research on this whole topic so pardon me if it seems like i'm contradicting any of my previous words. it's just that i've come back full circle: i believed fiction doesn't affect reality and have come to the same conclusion again

 

[The Great Sage]

...if i wasn't influenced by the media i consumed then doesn't that prove that people who are influenced by it had dormant fantasies from the start?

No, I don't think so. I urge you to be careful with this type of thinking, because empirical evidence of how psychology works (that is, evidence that you collect first hand over things that have happened to you) is not reliable.

Let me ask you, are you the type of person who easily bends to peer pressure? Maybe not so much, right?

Well there are plenty, plenty of people who will. There are people who don't want to drink and drive who will do it if their peers tell them to. There are people who will break into houses as long as they're with a group of friends. Social pressure is a real thing to a lot of people because we as humans are intensely social animals.

Unfortunately, this kind of 'monkey see, monkey do' behaviour is more or less written right into the source code of our beings, and there are plenty of people in the world who are completely enslaved by it. If you're not one of them, count yourself lucky.

 

[Armageddon]

it's a very thin tightrope for people to walk when they allow themselves to become wholly invested into fiction. i completely agree that fiction can and does influence individual people, and society as a whole. fictional stories have been a massive part of human culture, from way back when tall tales and myths were spread from person to person, generation to generation, to now when we have more access than ever before to fiction. entire cultures will center themselves around questionably factual stories and base their whole social system, religious system, even law system upon these stories. and today, we see many examples of people falling into a rabbit hole of obsession that has an impact on our society now, today.

for example - and as a member of this fanbase, this was incredibly disturbing for me to read about - a twelve year old girl was stabbed nineteen times by two of her twelve year old friends, who believed they were sacrificing their friend to the slenderman. they had become so involved in this fictional monster and the universe surrounding it that they were moved to murder just to impress something that doesn't exist, under the assumption he suddenly would appear if they did this horrific act. they have left immeasurable trauma on that girl and have brought it upon themselves as well. they will likely never be the same kids they were before the attempted slaughter.

it's not just children though. young adults and older adults will take to obsessing over a fictional universe or character to the point of unhealthy obsession, which ruins lives in and of itself. otakus, extreme anime-obsessed people, will center their entire homes, personalities, even relationships around a character that does not exist, or a universe that doesn't exist. we see people who claim to have 'waifus', taking it to such extremes they'll buy pillows and sex toys to live in a fantasy where they're a part of the fiction and actively 'being with' these anime characters. many isolate themselves and cut off close ties with real people, all in the name of dedicating themselves to not-real things.

the idea of fiction-based obsession preys on the mentally ill especially, and can worsen illnesses to the point of a person committing suicide knowing they won't be able to exist in their perfect fiction, or encouraging detachment from reality to the point of self-harm and harming others whilst believing it has no permanent effect on anything. as a mentally ill person myself (ironically, with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder to boot), i had to pull myself away from obsessing too much over the fictional things i enjoyed so they wouldn't consume my life and detach me from things that were real and actually mattered.

i have absolutely no clue how anybody can say that fiction has no influence on reality. fiction <i>is</i> reality, when it comes down to it, for far too many people, and it's a terrifying thing to think about.