How much do you think fiction actually influences reality?

[AnHero]

I encountered this meme here while I was foraging in the wilderness, and it sort of made me think:

It's some kind of anti-lolicon meme, kind of a 'gotcha' regarding how lolicons will easily agree that such pictures are representations of older women and thus implicity believe that enjoying such representations of older women in anime (I'm going to expand it to fictional media in general) must logically mean that they like older women irl--but suddenly a wrench is thrown in the equation when they get to representations of loli. Suddenly it's all very theoretical and conceptual, sometimes citing Baudrillard's simulacrum or Magritte's 'This is not a pipe'

But I wonder, what if I added a fourth panel of some guro scenes that was like "These are drawings of a murder" Will people agree that such a picture is a representation of violence, and thus implicitly believe that people who enjoy such representations must enjoy violence in real life? I doubt they will. It sounds too much like the 'video games cause school shootings' bullshit doesn't it? However a lot of people seem to apply this precise logic in denouncing loli.


Actually this sort of inconsistency as to whether fiction affects reality always seems to rear its head when it comes to sexual content as opposed to violent content. The sociopathic violence in games like GTA or Mortal Kombat is taken for granted, but game devs (and creators in general) have to be very careful about what they do with sex in their work (I think one recent example of this is that they're apparently going to tone down 'Skullgirls', because some of the content is 'literal cp')

(This is another example I've just remembered. There's this movie called 'Revenge of The Nerds'-- basically some kind of 'crazy antics at college' movie. In it there is a scene where one of the nerds is wearing the same Darth Vader halloween costume as one of the jocks. The jock's girlfriend encounters the nerd and thinks its her boyfriend, and the two have sex before she realizes-- totally preposterous stuff. What shocked me is how goddamned serious people took that scene. "Rape by Deception" is one phrase I saw bandied about. But let's think about this. Is there actually a woman out there, in real life, who is stupid enough to sleep with the wrong guy just because he's in the same costume her boyfriend was in? Does she not realize the guy's bearing is different? Does the guy not once give an uncharacteristic grunt? Does she not notice his cock looks different, or feels different, or anything? I mean, the whole argument is just retarded--the scene in question is fucking ridiculous. It's rape the same way that Looney Tunes is a snuff film. I would call something like that 'slapstick sex', if you asked me)

What do you think about all this? How much do you think fiction affects reality and people's perceptions?

Personally I'm a very 'anything goes' kind of guy. Hell, I don't think there should be rating systems or anything. I'd be fine if some major film broke the box office by depicting the Nazis as the good guys. The trouble, for me, only comes when entertainment is consumed in excess. I think when you consume endlessly without ever going out into the real world to get some perspective about life is when entertainment starts to mess with your perceptions and become 'dangerous'. When you have zero real world experience, entertainment becomes your experience, and that is the only way statements like 'video games cause violence' or 'loli is a gateway to pedohilia' make sense. Like, maybe loli isn't literally pedophilia, but obviously that faggot who spends all day edging to little sister hentai without ever meeting another human soul is going to have some issues...

 

[Some_porcupine]

Revenge of The Nerds

you aint seen nothing yet (wild-posting, gangstalking, conspiracies, "manufacturing" perversity...)

HOW CIA PUSHES TEENS TO PERVERSION: ANIMAL HOUSE, REVENGE OF THE NERDS, & AMERICAN PIE

Lately, I've been thinking about the teenage sex comedies I grew up with. I was too young to see Animal House or Porky's when they came out in the cinema, but I clearly remember watching Revenge o...

fightingmonarch.com

 

[AnHero]

you aint seen nothing yet (wild-posting, gangstalking, conspiracies, "manufacturing" perversity...)

Lol, I've read that article. The guy is basically the worst case scenario of what I'm getting at.

 

[Deleted member 5380]

Probably alot there was a dude who sued twitch cause it made him beat off so much it burned his dick id say thats pretty significant as far as friction goes

 

[manpaint]

As the saying goes "Art imitates life and life imitates art".

Fiction absolutely influence reality, especially when the line of fantasy and reality are not obvious.

A classical example of this is how police TV show and movie convinced people that they need to wait 24 hours before reporting someone has missing - something that AFAIK is not true in most of the world and can be a huge detriment for some cases.

Truth to be told, I don't really care what people do. Things that are "perceived" as normal shift over time. It is important to remember that for most of history, 12 year old kids were considered adults and that the concept of teenagehood was only invented relatively recently. It would not suprise me in the slightest if the pandulum would swing back.

As for anime and the influence of lolis, I don't think it would lead to the absolute abilition of the age of consent, but I can see it being lowered a bit both legally and socially in the future.

 

[greyetch]

After reading the thread, I don't think you're asking what I thought you were asking. But I'll share anyway, because this is the place to do it.

Fiction influences reality more than you think. It is called hyperstition. Here's a simple example: http://www.ccru.net/archive/burroughs.htm

A fair warning from Confucius, "To throw oneself into strange teachings is quite dangerous."

 

[Some_porcupine]

Fiction influences reality more than you think. It is called hyperstition. Here's a simple example: http://www.ccru.net/archive/burroughs.htm

oh here it was! saw this page once...

 

[BlackControlBoxer]

There is only what you watch and like and what its socially acceptable to say that you do. I made a similar post here ill just repost

Spoiler

Violent videogames do make people more desensitized , the army uses it to desensitize soldiers to being in combat conditions so they are technically still training even on their off times.

If you take a normal old person and show them mortal kombat fatalities they will gag try to puke, show it to and average gamer and they think its the coolest thing.
Does that make the average person that plays mortal kombat more likely to be violent? No. But it can also be used as a medium to exude your desires of doing real life things without the consequences of it(i.e columbine doom maps), and it definitely makes you less afraid of the scenario. Pilots train with flight simulators for the real thing for a reason.
Videogames if at all might make you less violent IRL if you have actual violent feelings by running over people on gta after a shitty work day instead of just doing it in real life.

By consuming lolicon you are at best desensitizing your brain to the real thing and at worst using it as a training tool for the real thing.
If you met someone really enjoys the Torture game for 3 hours everyday without missing a day and makes it a core part of their identity their profile picture and talk about it all the time that would raise red flags all over the place.
Same with lolicon.

Arguing about the abstract its only possible if you are comparing with reality, the pipe can't be stuffed until somebody did, what now?

 

[Some_porcupine]

problems we have now with net, seems to be cut out from dystopian cyber-novels
but not the hero era/saga, but "normies" who live thru it, everyone BUT the hero/protagonist...
like, what villains speak of - becomes reality; when some hi-ups and scheming big-corp no-one-elected elites (WEF maybe too - cant decide, only that rich can and OTHERS cant... (things)) - go by these books it seems...
is it only me?

 

[llillilll]

I believe what concepts and characters people like in fiction doesn't show anything about people. A characters moral alignment means nothing in media. Characters must be interesting, not morally good.

 

[ECHETLAEUS]

I would say that a part of fiction is inspired from the reality. Even the prototype ideas of fiction can even become like a prophecy and get implemented years after. The world of the ideas is real and alive. You just set your brain the right way, in order to attract those ideas. Even the early technologies blueprints somewhere were just an imagination and a dream. Dreams are real and they become more real than everyday life.

 

[stonehead]

Fiction does seem to affect reality by adjusting the ways people behave. As a trivial example, if fiction had no effect on reality, then there would be no product placement. Why would anyone pay billions of dollars to get their product into a movie, if it had no way to affect real world sales?

Another slightly taboo example, A Netflix show romanticizing suicide is associated with a statistical increase in suicide rates.

So clearly, there's some sort of influence between fiction and reality, the question is how large of an impact is it, and in what domains. For the specific examples in the OP, (young looking anime characters and violent video games), I'm not entirely sure. The two arguments seem to be desensitization versus "getting it out of your system." As @Boxerdog points out, exposure to extreme stimuli, does seem to desensitize people to them. Your first time seeing an internet shock site makes you want to vomit, but the 20th shock site doesn't elicit much of a reaction. The unanswered question is, does this change in reaction significantly affect behavior? I don't know the answer, but it does seem plausible.

The argument I've often seen defending "extreme content" (be it mortal kombat fatalities or degenerate anime characters) is that people can consume this content in fiction and satisfy their desires without needing to do anything in reality. I never found this argument very convincing, because other appetites don't seem to work like this. Eating a bunch of cake one day doesn't make you less likely to eat cake the next day. Alcoholics don't "sate their craving" by having one drink, they tend to relapse, and drink more.

I can't find the study, but I remember reading that punching a pillow actually increases violent behavior, instead of satisfying it. Now, maybe punching an inanimate object affects your brain differently than watching someone else punch something in a movie, but I doubt it. That's not to say violent video games necessarily make people more violent, only that the "I'm just getting it out of my system" argument is a weak one.

 

[Some_porcupine]

I can't find the study, but I remember reading that punching a pillow actually increases violent behavior, instead of satisfying it.

I can't find the study, but I remember reading that punching a pillow actually increases violent behavior, instead of satisfying it. at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[imnotdeadyet]

I saw one discussion a while back that described it as having such a intricately constructed world view that you have to educate people on the precepts for them to even understand what you're trying to say. ...what's the point?

I always thought it was just a bad attempt at trying to sound smart. More text, more smart? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Amadis]

Media is real on some level to anybody watching it. Its fiction but the ideas will still occupy your head and the reactions characters have will have some sort of impact on the way your perceive others to see things. I'm sure most people have talked to somebody whos watched too much anime and talks like theyre the MC. Most people have normal enough lives to where they have better discretion.
Thats not to say fiction should be policed and depictions of things should be tame, people should be more credited for being able to see horrible things and walking away just fine.

 

[RisingThumb]

Fiction is literature about imaginary events and/or imaginary people. Enough psyops and conspiracy theories have been proven true and false to say the first happens, and enough people are made angels and demons out of to say the latter is true. That descriptions of people are more often descriptions of imaginations or paper-thin idealisations of those people. As an excellent example of this, compare historical Jesus with Biblical Jesus. So all that's left is writing of this.

I leave the journalists to it, and they have a big effect.

 

[Sketch Relics]

I encountered this meme here while I was foraging in the wilderness, and it sort of made me think:

It's some kind of anti-lolicon meme, kind of a 'gotcha' regarding how lolicons will easily agree that such pictures are representations of older women and thus implicity believe that enjoying such representations of older women in anime (I'm going to expand it to fictional media in general) must logically mean that they like older women irl--but suddenly a wrench is thrown in the equation when they get to representations of loli. Suddenly it's all very theoretical and conceptual, sometimes citing Baudrillard's simulacrum or Magritte's 'This is not a pipe'

I'm fairly certain that this "meme" is directed towards the FF14 race Lalafel.

The comic itself is actually just dumb, I've seen works of fiction that depict each stage of human development as a type of development in other species. You could just as easily substitute the "gotcha" moment in the comic to the Ringworld Pactmakers for the elderly slide or to any number of quick aged characters/alternate sub species/extended age (Sin Kiske/Dizzy from Guilty Gear, Fiona from VOLTOMS, Elves, Gnomes, anyone imortally stuck at a certain age) for the adult slide. The actual issue, I would argue, is the inability for some (maybe a lot of) people to properly separate fiction from reality, or engage in the ideas portrayed in fiction in a healthy way.

Using the comic as an example, had it actually used a picture of a Lalafel it's point would basically lose all of it's impact from the get-go as they are very obviously not human. It could still maintain it's point by using an example of the 1000 year old loli dragon/vampire/immortal/ ect, however it then runs into a different issue.

Why is child attraction bad?

Dumb question I know, it's because a child is not physically or mentally developed enough to engage in a relationship with an older person without being massively traumatized/taken advantage of on both fronts and a person whom is physically attracted to children would be tempted into engaging in such an act through any number of personal delusions, however with the fictional context of the loli character actually being 1000 years old both problems cease to exist as a 1000 year old person will obviously be mature enough to handle a relationship and if their natural physiology merely is just loli then it should be able to handle the physical aspects of the relationship as well. This is where I think people start having issues because they start viewing this as justification for actual pedophilia, forgetting that the thing that makes it okay in fictional works is the fictional context that alters the base moral argument from a child to a person who just looks like a child. and blending it into the real life reason this shit is not okay. It may even be counterproductive to their goals as It's arguably healthier for pedo's to engage in their attraction in this fictional context to fictional characters since it gives them a "fully developed" women of their preferred body type to simp over rather than projecting it onto actual children.

As for your base question of does fiction effect reality, the answer is "as much as any individual let's it" something of a running theme in this post.
I really think people need better fiction/reality separation in general.

 

[stonehead]

Using the comic as an example, had it actually used a picture of a Lalafel it's point would basically lose all of it's impact from the get-go as they are very obviously not human.

I may be missing something because I've never played the game, but doesn't it just look like a human with big ears? A human wearing elf-ears for a cosplay or something is still very much a human. "No it's not a child, it has big ears, see?" doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument.

however with the fictional context of the loli character actually being 1000 years old both problems cease to exist as a 1000 year old person will obviously be mature enough to handle a relationship and if their natural physiology merely is just loli then it should be able to handle the physical aspects of the relationship as well. This is where I think people start having issues because they start viewing this as justification for actual pedophilia, forgetting that the thing that makes it okay in fictional works is the fictional context that alters the base moral argument from a child to a person who just looks like a child.

Where this argument falls apart for me is that "people who just look like a child" don't exist outside of extremely rare genetic issues. An artist made the conscious decision to have them look like a child. Maybe it could shift the blame from the consumers to the authors, but it still doesn't justify the existance of the 1000 year old children. Occasionally there's an interesting reason behind it, but the vast majority of the time these characters look like children in order to pander to creeps. The "It's a fictional race" argument doesn't seem that different to me than the "It's a fictional child" argument. Lusting over a fictional child isn't ok just because it has no real world counterpart, and in the same way, lusting over a fictional race isn't ok just because it has no real world counterpart.

Now, I don't believe in thought crimes or anything. No one is guilty just because of how their brain works, but it's not a part of your personality that you want to foster. Just like being a compulsive gambler, or susceptible to alcoholism, it's something you should try to stifle as much as possible.

and blending it into the real life reason this shit is not okay. It may even be counterproductive to their goals as It's arguably healthier for pedo's to engage in their attraction in this fictional context to fictional characters since it gives them a "fully developed" women of their preferred body type to simp over rather than projecting it onto actual children.

Personally, I don't think simping over any fictional character is healthy. If you have to simp, then simping over an adult who looks like an adult is better than an adult who looks like a child. But, to use a safe example, watching cooking shows doesn't satisfy my desire for unhealthy food, and make me eat healthier in real life. Instead it stokes the flames of my hunger, and makes me want to eat more. I haven't seen anything to indicate that simping works differently.

 

[Sketch Relics]

I may be missing something because I've never played the game, but doesn't it just look like a human with big ears? A human wearing elf-ears for a cosplay or something is still very much a human. "No it's not a child, it has big ears, see?" doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument.

Is it just the ears for you? they look like they have wonky proportions to me, with smaller and stockier legs and arms and an odd face.
Somewhat ironically, this is actually the case in many species that aren't human.

Canine's would probably be the easiest to perceive example, or even just dogs by themselves really since their physiology runs such a ridiculous gambit.
"No it's not a dog it just has longer legs see?"
Is how this comes across to me if you were trying to frame the same argument against the Maned Wolf not being anything other than a dog.

Where this argument falls apart for me is that "people who just look like a child" don't exist outside of extremely rare genetic issues. An artist made the conscious decision to have them look like a child. Maybe it could shift the blame from the consumers to the authors, but it still doesn't justify the existance of the 1000 year old children. Occasionally there's an interesting reason behind it, but the vast majority of the time these characters look like children in order to pander to creeps. The "It's a fictional race" argument doesn't seem that different to me than the "It's a fictional child" argument. Lusting over a fictional child isn't ok just because it has no real world counterpart, and in the same way, lusting over a fictional race isn't ok just because it has no real world counterpart.

This ties back into the response I made to OP's base question about seperating fiction from reality and is amusingly something touched upon in the OP about how people attempt apply this sort of standard to lust, but not violence. "Participating in fictional violence isn't ok just because it has no real world counterpart" The affects and morals of fiction do not exert influence over the affects and morals of real life AND vice~versa. The base reasons things are considered moral or immoral in real life are irrelevant in the creation of fiction and the justification or lack thereof in fiction does not alter the reasoning behind morals in real life. In essence, fiction doesn't actually have to be justified by real world existence, otherwise fiction wouldn't exist and we would just have history and things in fiction do not justify actions in real life. I am curious though, why would lusting after a fictional race not be ok? or is this tying back specifically to the Lalafell and not just other fictional races in general?

Just like being a compulsive gambler, or susceptible to alcoholism, it's something you should try to stifle as much as possible.

This doesn't seem to actually work all that well in regards to sexual attraction, or that whole suppressing the gay thing from 70 years back would have worked out better.
To continue your own analogy, I would consider non-pedo's to be people that don't drink at all, a pedo that keeps himself to fictional things as someone who only takes a drink or two without going overboard, and fully engaged pedo's as the alcoholics. While it's not an ideal situation to have to take one or two drinks to function it's far better than falling into alcoholism because you tried and failed to completely abstain.

 

[BlackControlBoxer]

however with the fictional context of the loli character actually being 1000 years old both problems cease to exist as a 1000 year old person will obviously be mature enough to handle a relationship and if their natural physiology merely is just loli then it should be able to handle the physical aspects of the relationship as well.

No because midget porn is 100% legal and most midgets are single.

The base reasons things are considered moral or immoral in real life are irrelevant in the creation of fiction and the justification or lack thereof in fiction does not alter the reasoning behind morals in real life

Yes and no.

People will run over people on gta to let off some steam instead of doing actual violence.
When a person beats to lolicon he is letting off the steam instead of making cheese pizza.

Whether that is better or not matters not if he still feel the urge, Many people will easily and casually tell you That they are about to go postal after a 6day 14hr shift week, not many people will tell you that they're gonna pull a edp.

Violent feelings are acceptable to most humans, you just let off in the gym, in a videogame, at the range etc. Most humans will feel the urge to punch someones head off at least once in their life and more likely the will feel it multiple times during their life span.

Lust feelings for pre teens aren't acceptable for most humans. Therefore ways to let them off are also not accepted because of the small space of possible actions that can exacerbate lust.

If you met someone really enjoys the Torture game for 3 hours everyday without missing a day and makes it a core part of their identity their profile picture and talk about it all the time. Would that raise red flags? Its not about what is fictional and what's real its about the mindset rationalizing the action behind it.

Of course you don't wanna have thought crimes but as you said

fictional context that alters the base moral argument from a child to a person who just looks like a child.

Implicitly means that a person is attracted to child looks, which in the real world only children look like it, and that comes with all the prejudices and caveats that comes with.

Its not about what is philosophically moral or not its about protecting real life children.

Even if you have a logical gotcha or find a loophole people would simply rather be unfair to those who feel those feelings, its just human nature and its hardcoded in.

or that whole suppressing the gay thing from 70 years back would have worked out better.

The worst thing that can happen to you from being gay its to have a blow out asshole, If you are 2 adults its whatever, gay porn does not simulate queers taking advantage of pre teens(or at least i hope not), Lolicon does.
The acceptance of letting people fudgepack its pretty much irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, A couple of homos aren't worth the trouble for a capitalist society to suppress because some people think its gross, as long as both have the possibility of working 40hrs a week the economic world couldn't care less.

To continue your own analogy, I would consider non-pedo's to be people that don't drink at all, a pedo that keeps himself to fictional things as someone who only takes a drink or two without going overboard, and fully engaged pedo's as the alcoholics. While it's not an ideal situation to have to take one or two drinks to function it's far better than falling into alcoholism because you tried and failed to completely abstain.

If you take a drink or two(depending on the jurisdiction) you are not allowed to drive, fly or sail, operate machinery, technically have consensual sex, contribute to the delinquency of a minor or even BE IN A PUBLIC PLACE while under the influence.

I don't think anybody would oppose those restrictions to lolicons tbh.