Read on Twitter
Gonna be honest, the whole question of "does fiction affect reality" is fatally flawed from the beginning, as it eliminates any opportunity for nuance.
It should be "CAN fiction affect reality?" because yes - fiction CAN affect reality, but it does not inherently do so.
+
It should be "CAN fiction affect reality?" because yes - fiction CAN affect reality, but it does not inherently do so.
+
That& #39;s why representation in media matters. This is the nuance that is so often eliminated in these conversations online, because people want a black or white answer: it DOES, or it DOESN& #39;T. And that& #39;s just not correct, it& #39;s not a black-or-white issue and when we reduce it +
to a black-or-white issue, we end up harming real victims.
Reports indicate that up to 90% of reports received by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are for innocent images.
Imagine that. 90%, how many resources could go to real life victims?
Reports indicate that up to 90% of reports received by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are for innocent images.
Imagine that. 90%, how many resources could go to real life victims?
Think of it like this: If you see something on twitter that you think "ew, gross" I bet you haven& #39;t logged off and suddenly gone and done that thing in real life against your will.
That& #39;s because you have to MAKE THE CHOICE to do something in reality.
That& #39;s because you have to MAKE THE CHOICE to do something in reality.
This whole question of "fiction does affect reality" or "fiction doesn& #39;t affect reality" is so fatally flawed, because I think any rational person can recognise that it CAN... It& #39;s not even a question of "does it" or "does it not".
It can. But you have to CHOOSE to let it.
It can. But you have to CHOOSE to let it.
It baffles me to see this conversation be had without any kind of nuance whatsoever.
If a raging homophobe sees gay representation on TV, they won& #39;t suddenly be converted the second they see it. It doesn& #39;t work like that. They have to LET THEIR VIEW BE INFLUENCED.
If a raging homophobe sees gay representation on TV, they won& #39;t suddenly be converted the second they see it. It doesn& #39;t work like that. They have to LET THEIR VIEW BE INFLUENCED.
And some people are susceptible to this - you hear reports of mentally ill individuals being influenced by, for example, video games. And that DOES happen - but that is because of existing mental health issues, and it is NOT the majority of people.
If you can see something on twitter that you hate, and not go and suddenly recreate that in your daily life - congratulations! That& #39;s an example of how fiction CAN affect reality, but does not inherently do so.
This issue isn& #39;t black or white. Stop treating it like it is.
This issue isn& #39;t black or white. Stop treating it like it is.
And "problematic" fictional content (as in problematic content which is legally innocent, like sexy BNHA characters or something) cannot hurt anyone just by existing.
For fictional content to be harmful, it has to be USED by someone IN A HARMFUL MANNER.
For fictional content to be harmful, it has to be USED by someone IN A HARMFUL MANNER.
Fictional content CAN be used to groom people, too. But here& #39;s the thing people ignore: it& #39;s not the fictional content doing the grooming... it& #39;s the person doing the grooming.
People can groom others with candy, puppies, fiction, ANYTHING. It& #39;s not the candy doing the grooming.
People can groom others with candy, puppies, fiction, ANYTHING. It& #39;s not the candy doing the grooming.
We need to start approaching this for what it is: A nuanced discussion with no black or white answer, because THAT is how we can actually go about supporting victims properly.
Fiction CAN affect reality - but doesn& #39;t do so inherently.
Fiction CAN affect reality - but doesn& #39;t do so inherently.
And remember: when we place the blame for issues such as grooming on the materials used (candy, puppies, fictional content, etc) it takes the onus OFF of the groomer themselves.
We SHOULD be blaming the groomer.
Fictional content CANNOT groom people just by simply existing.
We SHOULD be blaming the groomer.
Fictional content CANNOT groom people just by simply existing.
I& #39;m going to bed soon, but: I& #39;m not here to argue, so if you& #39;re an asshole I& #39;m just gonna block you without even reading your reply. It& #39;s literally just wasting your own time, I guarantee you I will not read it and I& #39;ll just block you, so I wouldn& #39;t bother 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="❤️" title="Rotes Herz" aria-label="Emoji: Rotes Herz">
I can& #39;t delete my tweet without making the thread nonsensical, but apologies, I got it wrong - 90% of the reports FROM the NCMEC are regarding innocent images.
The NCMEC are reporting innocent images, and other authorities are asking them to stop. https://www.article19.org/resources/inhope-members-reporting-artwork-as-child-sexual-abuse/">https://www.article19.org/resources...
The NCMEC are reporting innocent images, and other authorities are asking them to stop. https://www.article19.org/resources/inhope-members-reporting-artwork-as-child-sexual-abuse/">https://www.article19.org/resources...
