>>2566
It's because people consider artworks to be representations of societal problems. They don't think it's real, but they attack it because it's a symbol of a real problem.

Also, people have a big problem empathizing with eachothers interests. I don't like scat, but I like guro, so what would I be doing saying your fucking scat fetish is gross?

If I didn't like rape, force, loli, bondage, if all my interests were perfectly vanilla, I might be more inclined to follow my gut feeling and judge others.

It would be much harder for me to see that sexual desires victimize those who have them, and I might think of abusive sexual artworks as literally commemorating, confirming, and endorsing those kinds of behaviors, if all my sexual interests were either repressed beyond ever expressing them in art, or were so vanilla as to be assumed parts of any sexually active persons life.

Obviously art isn't like that. There's a difference between expressing one's innermost desires and deigning that those desires are good to literally act upon. And if simply having them is a sin, or if expressing them is a sin but having them is not, we're in the area of thought crime and censorship.

If you ask me, porn artists being run off the internet is, in any case, a shame of bad philosophy and un-empathetic, ill-thought out behaviour. But what do I know-- I'm an animal molesting kill-rapist (j fucking k).