I'm tired of media being used as weapons
Everyone knows about US military using video games as a way of propagandizing and trying to convince people into joining. First by making their own, secondly by latching onto already existing franchises. It is a widely recognized practice, and rightfully so - yet there is an aspect that a lot of people forget about whenever talking about it. The criticisms doesn't end at "The US military shouldn't be funding video games to push its propaganda" and morphs into "Portraying war or soldiers in a heroic fashion is inherently wrong and normalizes war". There is a simple problem with this sort of criticism of video games that a lot of people simply forget about.
The US army's approach of using military shooters to try and push their own beliefs DOESN'T WORK.
Recruitment rates actually show an opposite correlation between the peak of violent military shooters which portrayed war as heroic and recruitment rates. It simply either doesn't do what the US wanted it to, or simply isn't enough of a relevant factor to matter. Yet in spite of that, still I see thousands of claims about the terrible way that the gaming industry portrayed war, and endless spiels about propaganda and the burning of the stake of any specific trope saying that it causes some kind of social harm.
Now personally, I don't actually like military shooters, I couldn't give two shits about them. Not because I think they're immoral, but because I think that series like CoD were middling and uninteresting badly designed slop that pales in comparisons to the far more fun retro FPS of the old (no insult to any CoD fans, you can like what you like, I simply don't share your passion). But this trend appears OVER and OVER and OVER again, not just when it comes to portrayals of war - but portrayals of literally anything.
You like characters that are sexy and attractive? Well you're normalizing sexism and rape culture! In spite of the fact that pornographic content is correlated with a FALL in rates of sexual abuses rather than increases.
You don't think that lolicon is morally wrong? Well you're normalizing pedophilia! In spite of the fact that pedophilia is an innate condition that you cannot just "learn", and the fact that once again - statistical data shows the opposite correlation.
You are into BDSM? Well then you're an evil rapist sexual deviant. In spite of plenty of data to the opposite.
Now, I will make a statement that might annoy a few people - but for the same reason as previously, I absolutely despise the concept of "Representation" - not in the way of "Oh it's wrong to put a minority character in your work" - no, rather the very idea of stories, art and such as something that HAS TO reflect certain demographics for the sake of creating a positive outcome for the people it represents is ridiculous. First of all, I'm sceptical of how effective that actually is, and second of all - even if it was effective, the point is that this is not how an artist should think about characters to begin with. A character is a tool for the story, a reflection of it, not a real person with real impact, and all traits that they have should first and foremost serve the story. The old adage of "Killing your Darlings" comes to mind.
The point is, I see absolutely no difference in the logic of all of those examples - of the constant insistence that art has a profound impact on reality and that because of it, it needs to be responsible for what happens in reality.
This point is so ridiculously overstated that it becomes baffling. I think no one actually has any sort of delusions that art does not impact reality in some way, but that impact seems to be overexaggerated to such absurd degree that today it seems to justify actual policy in spite of violation of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. To the point that people will shame you for the things you deem to write and try to change old works to avoid the "harm" they bring into existence, the actual evidence of is so sparse that it might be at all non-existent.
This is also constantly emboldened by phrases such as "All art is political" - leading ideologues to act as if they have to censor anything that isn't even tacitly in support of their ideology. I was hoping my own political option (I'm an economically right wing libertarian) would avoid such problems due to commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but the last split on Libertytwt due to lolicon has crushed any hopes of what I consider to be actual sane approach to art being obvious to at least a singular group of people. It seems that the disgust that the idea of not being completely neurotic about the type of art one consumes or creates is so deeply ingrained, seemingly rational people become braindead morons unable to do basic fact checking before opening their mouths.
It feels like I'm sitting in the middle of people who keep releasing slop after slop, targeted at convincing others of their own ideas, of their own beliefs. And the idea that perhaps that's not what you want to do, that perhaps you want to focus on the craft itself is seen as some heretical concept. Now, many would say that even if you aren't conscious of it, you are still putting your own biases and perceptions into the work. To the point of which I would answer - SO WHAT? The alternative seems to be worse, thinking about works of art as memetic vectors which spread like a disease and infect others. Is that really a healthier way to think about art? If so, why does it lead to seemingly constantly more neurotic behaviour, awful creations and unnecessary cruelty to anyone who steps out of the mold?
It feels like everyone is intent to treat people as mindless drones that just consume everything that they're shown, agree with any message that is portrayed, without any respect to the fact that viewers can have their own agency. That they can see a work of art and say "I disagree with the message", or that an artist is able to write AGAINST his own message and not hold the opinion that he portrays.
If I create a fanfic about two characters I like being cannibals and end up living happily while murdering people - does that mean I suddenly support murder and cannibalism? Or is that just a way of making the story interesting, exploring things that I would condemn inherently in actual reality? I'm so tired of the constant lie we're sold, of the idea that humans are no agency and that they are merely slaves of media that they consume, mindlessly taking in ideas from the outside, seemingly an idea believed only because the people who believe in it want art to be tool, a weapon to bludgeon enemies with. To convince them of their rights and wrongs and brainwash them into their option.
Can art change minds?
Yes
Can art influence reality yes?
Yes
Is it to the same extent as modern culture seems to believe?
Fuck no.