What you’re referring to as ‘drama’ is, in wider fandom terms at the moment, antis: relentlessly pressuring someone into successfully committing suicide; suicide-baiting a good handful more until several people have wound up in hospital; getting a disabled woman sacked from her job in the middle of a pandemic because a former friend - and industry competitor, as well as a furry artist - reported her for drawing nsfw art in her private life; bullying queer creators of various franchises and telling them to kill themselves, and just generally doxxing, bullying, and clogging up feeds on every social media site with vile threats. Because antis disagree with the entirely fictional content that these people create - which is frequently tagged, warned for, and locked away so that children should not be able to access it unless they deliberately ignore all warnings and try to access it anyway.
So basically, a group of antis decided to prioritise fictional beings over real life, breathing ones.
Assuming you missed all of the above and so used a term as belittling as ‘drama’ unintentionally:
Here’s the thing: people do use stories about murder to encourage children into murdering people. Children usually do understand that death is sad and harmful - but not always! -, and sometimes children and teenagers do not care. Sometimes they haven’t understood the real life consequences of what they’re doing until they’ve actually done it. Children have been caught emulating violent video games by picking up weapons to use on others; teenagers have been caught trying to abduct others to kill them in the woods to summon cryptids like they’ve seen in youtube videos.
And if someone is absolutely determined to encourage a child into doing something immoral, they will use whatever that child is interested in to encourage a bond between the two of them, and groom said child.
If a paedophile (as in, a grown adult who is attracted to prepubescent children - and no other ‘meaning’ of the term as some antis would like to think) wants to groom a child, they will use whatever media or interest that child is interested in to do so. I hear a lot of antis railing against Lolita, but how many 12 year-olds and under do you know who are raptly fascinated by the works of Vladimir Nabokov? If someone had wanted to groom me as a child they would’ve talked about barbies and pokémon. Is it therefore the fault of the companies that handle those franchises that they were hypothetically used to groom me? No; that’s ridiculous.
Additionally: how dare you shift the blame from the paedophilic groomer in this scenario onto the child simply because of what media they might have consumed? Onto the people that produced that content? The only person to be blamed in this scenario is the paedophile abusing a living child.
Undoubtedly, paedophiles do use media with paedophilic content to groom children. They also use every other kind of content. We cannot, therefore, ban everything just because a paedophile might use it.
I absolutely believe that media - whoever it is produced by -, should always have its ‘problematic’ content tagged and warned for. But, as long as it is not hurting a real life, living breathing person, that problematic content absolutely has a right to exist.
Fiction does not need to be instructional to exist. It can just be, for whatever reason, and creators should be left in peace without having their reasons interrogated for why a certain piece of media came to be. No-one is entitled to the details of the life of another person, and creators should feel free to express themselves and whatever they may or may not be going through or have gone through without harassment and threats.
theartofmadeline
yousharknotpass
pixelskylines
amandla
gummygunk
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
kianamaiart
