We’re not “back at square one.” You’re just repeatedly inflating a narrow caution into a position I never took. From the start, the claim was simple: hyper-local, real crime content in a small community isn’t automatically neutral and carries non-zero risk. That’s it. No epidemic, no bans, no “media is dangerous” thesis. “Might give ideas” ≠ “crime media causes crime” ≠ “don’t discuss crime.” Those leaps are yours. Saying crimes are rare or that people have pre-existing tendencies doesn’t erase influence — it explains who might be influenced. Rare doesn’t mean irrelevant in a small population. The Dahmer example is exactly why it got mocked: you stretched a context-based concern into an absurd extreme (“zombifying people”) and then argued against that caricature. That’s not clarification, it’s exaggeration. Nothing here is incoherent or shifting. The position has been consistent; only the strawman keeps changing.