In the (admittedly unrefined and now deleted) first post of this blog, I briefly discussed the factors that influence our perceptions of right and wrong. One of those factors was media. And it is because of this that I view the constant hostility toward media containing problematic content as downright foolish; for it is not media that encourages the populace to partake in activities deemed wrong by society, but rather, it is media’s depiction of such activities that pushes this belief.

In my eyes, media that is problematic in nature can largely be classified into two fields; however, it is possible for media to simultaneously exist in both.

The first field, which henceforth shall be referred to as the "point-driven" form of problematic media, serves to bolster society’s views of right and wrong by portraying often uncomfortable subjects in a realistic light. This media doesn’t exist to endorse problematic actions but rather serves to depict the horrors of them. The best-known example of this, in my eyes, would be Of Mice and Men and similar books.

The second field, which henceforth shall be referred to as the "escapism-driven" form of problematic media, largely exists to provide a source of escapism for the consumer. This is content that, while problematic in nature through the eyes of some, is grounded so loosely in reality that it’s foolish to take as social commentary. Think of the Rance series and other eroge.

I’ve seen both of these fields criticized equally, but I felt the differentiation was important to make prior to writing further; albeit, I feel as though both mediums are equally valid.

The greatest criticism I’ve seen for media with problematic content is that such media serves to glorify or make light of often reprehensible subjects. Yet, I’d argue that, in the case of point-driven media, the complete opposite is true. To reuse my earlier example, Of Mice and Men has garnered a great deal of criticism over the years and has frequently appeared on banned book lists due to its depiction of racism.

But to criticize this book or wish for it to be banned, in my eyes, is to do the complete opposite of advocating for greater moralism within our society. This is not a work that utilizes racism to push the agenda of some extremist party; it is a work that depicts racism as it truly appeared at one point in the United States.

If we are not to face the harsh realities of our world, and not to recognize them within our creative works, then the very morals which the critics of these works are seeking to uphold will fade with time. If we do not wish for the people of our world to learn morals through their own misfortunes, then it is ultimately the role of media to do so.

This, however, is a point which only applies to the aforementioned point-driven media, as opposed to escapism-driven media, which seems to be far more controversial on internet spaces as of late. This is media which is far easier to view as glorifying terrible actions due to the nature of it.

This is media which serves not to provide social commentary, but to entertain. And it's in this purpose that I feel the hatred for such media grows rather pointless. Let us take the Rance series as an example. Rance is a series of games which revolves around, to word it nicely, repeated non-consensual sexual altarcations. There is absolutely no societal commentary in this series, but similarly, there isn't any advocacy to take such actions into reality either.

In my eyes, to depict an overly fantastical fantasy scenario in which there are no clear rules nor regulations set in place to counter such activities is not a mirror of reality. But rather, something solely created by the writer to entertain the delusions of the reader. This is not a piece of media which will drive people to take such actions in reality. And quite frankly, the very fact that they are actively seeking out a piece of media with such contents suggests that they have no intention to ever do so in reality.

To utilize a more widely known example, I'd compare it to the Call of Duty franchise, in that, by depicting such actions in an overly dramatized, and not whatsoever realistic manner, it is not advocating for gun violence; it is simply a form of predominantly mindless entertainment.

That is what the escapism-driven sect of media revolves around, they aren't inherently there to push any given moral agenda, but similarly, they don't exist to advocate for individuals to take actions of moral reprehensibility in reality. These are pieces of media which are actively sought out by individuals seeking entertainment, and there is little more to it.

And I understand that it is difficult to accept such a thing, particularly for the more morally zealous individuals out there, but honestly: Why bother? You're going after a form of media consumed by people who will never match your moral ideals, and created by people who will never match your moral ideals. Attempting to cease this loop would be akin to somebody attempting to change your own beliefs.

If your own moral system is so fragile that you feel as though a fictional scenario places it at risk, then I feel as though it's a mark of the inherently flawed nature of your beliefs, as opposed to a character flaw within those who consume escapism-driven problematic media.

In a society as increasingly complex and satirized as ours, it's essential that we mustn't take media at face value as instructions for how we must act, and quite frankly, I feel as though those who oppose problematic media view it as such. It's not a sign of virtue to wish for certain genres of media to be removed, it's a sign you lack the basic literacy needed to differentiate fiction from reality.

I do not care if you consume the same media as I, nor do I consume if you enjoy, or even tolerate, the same media as I. But I do feel as though the unjust hatred of "problematic" media is downright foolish, and in practice, has led to many developing a false sense of morality which will only hurt them in the future.