Are we really what we consume and what we write?

Fuck media censorship

Go for it nakamura was mid regardless of the authors other works tbh

I don't mind if taboo and immoral things show up in fiction, but there's a time, place, and occasion for some things, how and why topics and subjects are depicted matters, and the creation of a thing is not a neutral or even necessarily totally harmless act just because it's fiction or didn't physically harm someone irl.
fiction is an expression of reality. real people, with their real interests, intentions, constraints, and biases make every work of fiction. what is included in a work and why? what does the creator and audience find appealing or compelling about it? how are people engaging with it? how does that affect other things irl? the answers to those questions can be innocuous or warrant further attention or concern.
no art is produced or consumed in a vacuum. art reflects, reproduces, and influences culture. people develop their ideas about the world and people around them partly through the media they're surrounded with.

what is meant by censorship here?
people often conflate criticism or mere expressions of disgust with censorship and flatten any and all nuance of people rejecting depictions of rape/incest/pedophilia for sexual gratification for self-serving and disingenuous reasons ("don't take my porn away!!!").
even though I want to be free to make my own choices about seeing and buying media and adult content, and so (especially present) government control over media isn't something that I support, I'm not an anti-censorship absolutist, either, if censorship is merely anything that restricts the reach or distribution of media. what about private, indirect means of restricting content, like the shenanigans entertainment companies get up to with things that are too "woke" or "divisive" because they have women/nonwhite people/LGBT representation?

people should be able to freely create, but that doesn't mean they'll be free from criticism or simple reaction.
people can do whatever they want, but other people aren't obligated to respond to it favorably, is my general stance. the more dodgy, sensitive, or taboo the subject, the more it can and should be scrutinized. and the right to make something freely is a different question than the right to distribute something freely, especially when profit is involved.

tl;dr: freely making art =/= freely distributing it =/= no criticism or backlash against it.

and she’s a shota con so obviously she’s gonna receive backlash

The Japanese themselves have already said that Americans should stop reading manga xD because they want to eliminate everything and do whatever they want, as if they were the center of the universe. Another example that isn't yaoi: they also wanted to cancel *Dan da dan* because they thought it was weird, when that's actually the whole point/humor/fiction of the series. Idk. I don't pay any attention anymore to people who have nothing better to do than cancel a series they're reading illegally.

The author of *Nakamura Kun* draws beautifully, writes great comedy, and also has some excellent horror works. If psychological horror makes anyone uncomfortable, they simply shouldn't read it. It’s fine to discuss the characters’ actions within the story or how well it’s written, but those who want to criticize the author for supposedly having a twisted mind—well, they’d have to do that with every horror author, and meh. Junji Ito also depicts unsettling things in his works, and I don’t see the same kind of judgment directed at him, for example.

If anything is written incorrectly, it's because my translator messed up lol

But now i wonder: When is the right time? The right place? The right occasion? Because it feels like no matter what, when it comes to taboo/"illegal" content in fiction when sex is the main focus, the general opion willl always be hostile. I have never seen people attack an author when they wrote something extremely gore or that fucks with the brain, it's always just about sexual content.

why shouldn't topics dealing with sex get more scrutiny? why should reactions to sexual taboos be less hostile? they're taboo, after all. sex gets a different reaction because of its significance in society and to people in general, whether you agree with prevailing norms or not.
you've never seen it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. if you haven't seen people reacting negatively to other topics like violence and gore, you might simply not be in the media spaces/fandoms for those things. not to mention, the genres that feature violence and gore in extreme ways often telegraph or are very obvious and predictable in their content, like thrillers and horror. that's not always true with things centered around sexual content in all places, especially because the parameters of those taboos are not always the same - they are contested and controversial in ways that violence and gore isn't.

"are we what we consume and what we write?" can be rephrased as, "am I my words and actions?" that's all other people can base their opinions and judgements on, so yeah, that's how others will judge and interpret a person.

it's best not to make assumptions about why people make the things they do, and automatically assume they condone or promote what they make, but that doesn't mean the creator or even audience's interest in that topic is free from scrutiny or that conclusions can't be drawn from them and the works that include them. the work is fiction, but the ideas, themes, and messages are real.

I personally don't go around harassing artists and writers and don't think other people should do that either. I prefer to disengage and completely refuse support. but if a simple expression of disgust, criticism, or even condemnations in places they might potentially see it counts as harassment like some people claim, then that's too bad, I think that's fair game. I can't control what other people do, but I'm entitled to my own reactions.