I don't think it's sad at all. This actually reminds me of something.
When the superhero genre became big in Hollywood, there were a lot of analysts explaining how superheroes (and scifi) rivaling, then overtaking the popularity of Westerns, from the 1930s and onward, was actually an improvement, because purely fictional characters didn't have to reckon with the true reality of history. Kids didn't have to maneuver the cognitive dissonance of the cowboy archetype they looked up to, having a reality of inhumanity in history. A fictional character could just embody the ideals a society advocated for, be a pure symbol, and nothing else.
For example, kids looked up to the Lone Ranger because of his code of nobility. The Lone Ranger Creed advocated for timeless ideals, like equality. And yet, lots of men from the "Old West" era, historically, committed a lot of atrocities, often rooted in prejudice and bigotry. A lot of the people who fit the image of the "cowboy" archetype, to these children, would have historically committed many horrors that went completely against the Lone Ranger's Creed.
Idolizing the nobility of fictional cowboys, also spread into children idolizing cowboys and that "Old West" era in general. But that clashed with the completely unrespectable history of that real life "Old West" era and the people who actually lived at that historical time. And there's no guarantee that all those children who grew up idolizing cowboys, would be able to parse the idealized symbols that they respected, from history. In fact, it's very likely that many children who looked up to "cowboys", would have struggled so much with reconciling between their ideals taught to them by the fictionalized cowboy archetype, versus historical reality, that they may have doubled-down on defending the men who fit that archetype, despite then defending those men's horrific actions, that would have gone against the ideals that those children grew up believing that "cowboys" represented.
It's just so much easier to give children---and people in general---a pure symbol, not based in reality, who can represent ideals, without being sullied by historical realities or real life human flaws...that some people might be tempted to excuse, rather than understand as "cautionary tales".
Another issue: I remember when Hatsune Miku vs the music pop idol industry started being discussed, and one of the big points was that these pop idols are human beings who are not allowed to be human. Mostly because they need to be a symbol, and fans invest in them as representatives of whatever they need to project onto them. (Actors get treated this way too.) When our need for symbols and idols to look up to, get superimposed onto real life people, they are also disallowed from their human lives.
People need symbols. Not just to represent and convey what they believe in. But to also give examples of what to strive for. People need symbols to represent our ideals. But real human beings can't be perfect ideals. And when we try to turn real life human beings into perfect ideals, some people start excusing their human flaws (even the horrific ones), or disallowing them their human flaws (like idols and actors expected to embody perfection). It's inhumane in both ways.
Fictional characters can do all the benefits of idolized symbols without the inhumanity of glossing over history or depriving human performers of their messy/real lives. Fictional characters can be whatever symbols society needs at the time. Even when they have drama for our entertainment, we can rest assured that no one actually got hurt. Remember when Murdock from The Gorillaz got locked away in rehab and temporarily replaced by Ace from The Powerpuff Girls? If that was Britney Spears, we'd have to feel bad about leering at the drama. But I can find Rumi's breakup/reconciliation with Huntrix entertaining, without guilt.