Make your request in the comment

So, you dislike these kinds of bots because of what they depict. Fair enough. Moral disapproval is, of course, a legitimate position. But the more interesting question is not whether you find the material repugnant. The more interesting question is what exactly you believe your repugnance establishes.

Are you making a moral argument, or merely expressing a moral intuition?

Are you objecting to the content itself, or to the presumed character of the person who engages with it?

And perhaps more importantly: upon what epistemological basis do you infer that participation in a fictional simulation constitutes endorsement of the simulated behavior?

There is a fundamental distinction between representation, imagination, intention, disposition, and action. Sociology has long recognized that individuals occupy multiple symbolic and normative contexts; the norms governing behavior in one social domain do not automatically transfer unchanged into another. Fiction is a symbolic environment. A simulation is not a legal institution, a physical interaction, or a declaration of intent.

A person can engage with a fictional representation of violence without committing violence. A person can portray an immoral character without endorsing that character's morality. A person can explore a taboo without wishing to reproduce it in the empirical world.

That does not make every fictional representation ethically neutral. It simply means that the transition from fictional representation to moral character is an empirical and philosophical claim that requires justification.

So when you say, "People who engage with this are disgusting," what precisely are you asserting?

That they possess a particular disposition?

That their fictional preferences causally predict their real-world conduct?

That exposure produces normalization?

That normalization produces behavioral change?

Or are you simply converting your own normative intuition into a generalized sociological proposition?

Because those are radically different claims.

Perhaps some people use fiction as experimentation with prohibited ideas. Perhaps others use it for curiosity, fantasy, catharsis, escapism, provocation, or entertainment. Perhaps for some people it means absolutely nothing beyond the temporary suspension of ordinary social constraints within an explicitly fictional environment.

We cannot simply infer the underlying psychology from the content of a fictional interaction.

And this is where moral certainty becomes intellectually interesting.

If you believe fictional behavior reveals authentic moral character, what is your mechanism of inference?

If you believe imagination and action are morally equivalent, what principle establishes that equivalence?

If you believe disturbing fiction produces harmful social attitudes, where is the causal evidence separating correlation, selection effects, normalization, and actual behavioral causation?

If your argument depends upon social norms, are you defending a universal ethical principle or merely reproducing the normative expectations of your particular social environment?

If something is offensive but produces no identifiable victim, what precisely constitutes the harm?

And if your answer is simply, "It is wrong because decent people know it is wrong," then what epistemological method are you using to determine who qualifies as decent?

Perhaps the most uncomfortable question is this:

Are you actually defending an ethical principle, or are you rationalizing an emotional reaction after the fact?

And if you insist that fictional imagination is evidence of real-world moral character, what methodology would you accept for demonstrating that proposition?

If you cannot distinguish representation from endorsement, fantasy from intention, and symbolic transgression from empirical conduct, are you making a moral argument—or merely mistaking your interpretation of someone else's imagination for knowledge of their character?

IN CASE YOU'RE TOO DUMB TO COMPREHEND THE FIRST QUESTION

So, you hate these kinds of bots because of what they depict. Fine.

But what exactly are you angry about?

The fiction itself? Or the people who enjoy it?

Because those are two different things.

If someone talks to a fictional character who does something horrible, does that automatically mean they support it in real life?

Does writing about something mean you want it to happen?

Does imagining something mean you would actually do it?

Does playing along with a fictional scenario tell you who someone really is?

If your answer is yes, then you have a pretty big claim to prove.

People already understand the difference between fiction and reality in everyday life. We watch movies about murder without becoming murderers. We play violent games without assuming every player wants to kill someone. We read stories about horrible people without assuming the author secretly agrees with them.

So why suddenly throw that distinction away when the subject makes you uncomfortable?

And no, this doesn't mean every fictional fantasy is automatically harmless or beyond criticism. You're allowed to criticize it. You're allowed to find it disgusting. You're even allowed to argue that certain fiction can have harmful effects.

But if you're going to claim that someone's fictional interests reveal their real-world morality, prove the connection.

What's the evidence?

What's the causal mechanism?

Where does imagination end and intention begin?

Where does intention end and actual behavior begin?

Are you making a moral argument, or are you simply taking your personal disgust and dressing it up as one?

And here's the part you might not like:

Do you actually know what someone's fictional fantasies say about them—or did you just assume you know because you didn't like what you saw?

If fiction is not reality, why are you judging a fictional act as though it were a real one?

If imagination equals intent, does every fictional crime imply criminal intent?

If depiction equals endorsement, does every story about evil make its creator evil?

And finally:

Are you defending a principle—or are you just looking for a sophisticated way to justify being disgusted?