So let’s try to address this point by point.
First of all, “political correctness” (as we know it today) was a term coined by Right Wing pundits in America in the 80s/90s. It was meant to be derisive and ridicule the changing of language. Specifically, it was ridiculing activists from minority groups who had decided the majority (in power) didn’t get to come up with terms to describe or label them, but that the minority group themselves should have say in what they are called. So for example the phasing out of “negro” and “colored” for “African American” and “Person of Color” (PoC). “Black” (capitalized) is also used, but the history of that term is long and complicated and I’m not getting into it here. These groups are not a monolith, so what’s acceptable for one person or sub group might be different from another and changes back and forth over time. That’s why we have “Indian” being replace with “American Indian”, “Native American”, and “First Nation(s)”. You also have the phasing out of “homosexual” for gay, LGBTQ+, and the reclaimation of the word “Queer” by academics (though that also varies by person). That’s not even getting into Disability politics, which i am less familiar with.
To sum that all up, it was a broad collection of attempts for groups with less power to decide their labels and take back some of that power from the majority. It was less an attempt to police what people said and more to get them to respect the minority and actually ask them for their input. The politicalization of the concept came from those in power who resisted it. As an old man I once interviewed said “I don’t care what you call me as long as it’s not insulting” and that’s really what it comes down to.
A good thing to remember about “PC culture” is that it is not one unified group it is many smaller fractured groups who are all lumped together and differ in goals and methods.
Now we come to censoring. Censoring is when the government, and/or the group in power, decide to delete or change information to suit their needs. The majority of censoring comes not from activists or people in the minority groups themselves (though they are sometimes involved).
In the case of the the shows you mentioned, that’s not traditional censoring. For one, it’s not done by a government, but by a corporation, as is the majority of the things referred to as “censoring” these days. Why would they do this? The government doesn’t mandate that they do. They do it because Capitalism. Their goal is to make money, and companies like to avoid bad press or negative attention. So very often they decide to just bury it. To take the offensive thing from the past and hide it under the bed like a child who broke something. The people who make these decisions are also often not in the minority groups nor do they consult them. See “Song of the South” which Disney does its hardest to pretend never happened.
In general (though not always because they’re not a monolith) activists don’t actually want the removal of the past thing. They also usually don’t want it changed or altered. Instead they prefer that past thing is 1) not actively promoted, and 2) shown with a contextualization of the time and place it came from. This is what happened with Warner Brothers World War 2 era propaganda cartoons. They were proceeded by a disclaimer and someone explaining the context around them. This move was pretty well received with calls for this to be done for other properties, like “Song of the South”. This has been done again recently for some older anime, with a positive reception from activists and minority groups.
Now let’s address the story and the conflating of reality and fiction. After the Columbine Shooting there was a lot of conversation blaming the school shooting on violent video games and similar media. Studies have consistently shown however that this isn’t the case. Shooting people in video games doesn’t make you want to go out and shoot people, just like seeing something in a movie doesn’t necessarily make you want to do that thing. Media is actually pretty bad (in general) at motivating specific action. What it actually does is shape worldview and reinforce existing beliefs. So it doesn’t make you want to do something, but it can get you to believe something.
For example, a majority of Americans believe torture works and is a useful method for getting information from captives. However, multiple studies and most intelligence experts find that’s not actually the case. Prisoners will say whatever they need to to get the torture to stop, and this is rarely useful or true. What really works is forming a rapport with them and much slower methods. So why do Americans believe this? Because torture DOES work: on television. In 24 and most cop shows the protagonists have to torture or violently interrogate prisoners or suspects to get them to give up the information quickly. It works this way on TV because they only have so much time to tell the story and it’s exciting. It has little basis in reality, but people believe it because it forms most of their ideas on torture.
One thing we’ve also seen is that it is common for people to relate to characters in fiction (particularly television) the way they would to real people. In particular, studies have shown that seeing characters from groups the viewer is not a part of, be it race, gender, sexuality, ect., actually helps them relate to those groups and breeds empathy, similar to the way knowing them in real life would. So for people who grow up surrounded by others like themselves and who might never meet a Jewish gay man, seeing one depicted positively on TV can help them empathize with someone they might otherwise have no interaction with.
So when we get to stories like the one that comment was posted on, we know from studies that porn and erotica actually shape viewers/ readers beliefs on how sex is supposed to be. 50 Shades of Gray was blasted by the BDSM and kink community for its bad and unsafe depiction of BDSM, which was influencing the preconceptions of people wanting to try it out and the general public at large.
I was on a site for pups and handlers, and as a handler/ trainer/Master I would often have pups messaging me. When I responded that I thought pups should be treated with kindness, that good pups got rewards, and basically repeated the general motto of BDSM, “Safe, Sane, Consensual,” I was often surprised when the pup would be super happy and ask me to be their handler/trainer/Master. Especially the ones who had previous owners, the constant refrain was them wishing they could find someone who treated them with respect and asked what they wanted out of the relationship. Often times what they wanted was degrading or for the owner to be tough, but they wanted it to be a relationship where they had a paw in deciding that instead of it being one way. There was one pup who was convinced he couldn’t have an owner or even get into headspace because he was dominate, and all the owners he met thought that pups could only be subs. Last year we met and had a great session where he felt comfortable enough to get into the headspace and he told me afterwards that he had had a great time. This was because I didn’t have the conception that he needed to act a certain way and met him where he was at.
That isn’t to say that there is no place for kinky, possibly demented stories. That sort of thing turns people on and is a mainstay for sites such as this. But if every story is like that, people read them believing that that is all there is and that that’s how Master/ slave relationships should go. Common sense disclaimers at the top of stories can go a long way towards helping this, just like how some authors warn about STDS being a danger in real life that you should watch out for. You might think this is hand holding or coddling, but “common sense” isnt actually that common and people come in with different experiences, backgrounds, and bases of knowledge.
Another is acknowledging that not all the stories on this site need to be like that. Pretty much everything by Happy Endings ends with the characters happy and grown from their experiences, but there are dozens of stories that focus on healthy relationships or have a positive/happy ending on this site. Just like some people prefer the darker stuff, some people prefer lighter stuff, and both are equally valid. Personally I’m here for muscle growth and tend to avoid heavy mind control or darker stories. As the saying goes, “your kink is not my kink and it’s ok”. Just be aware that your stories, even your fantasy stories on a fetish site, have an impact and influence the reader. And those readers in turn will tell you how they felt about it, especially when they’re blindsided by the things they come to fiction to get away from.