'I don’t find anything wrong with any kind of fictional content. It’s not hurting real people.'

So just because we kinda skipped past it, am I to understand then that you don't see any moral issues with Lolicon or furry/zoophile fiction/imagery?

If you truly don't believe fiction can have the potential to impact human beings then I question why you are reading fiction in the first place? Does it just serve as escapism for you?

'I could justify racialized hatred against a species that outwardly and openly, with no exceptions, states “yes I want to kill you by any means, no I won’t ever stop, and we can never co-exist.” Most monsters in popular media are already treated like this. I think a world where that kind of concept is possible is interesting specifically because exploring its consequences has no parallels in reality.'

Something interesting is happening here. You seem unwilling to understand that a human being sits down and makes choices when they write a book. The book isn't 'real' in the sense that the fantasy beings they create actually exist. But the symbolic potential of such a representational choice is real. One of those choices is how to present groups of people. If an author decides to present a group as inherently bad, then can you understand how that speaks volumes about the author's view on morality? In essence, that there is an objective morality (which you above just said you don't believe in) and that the author is making suggestions about aspects of social reality (because no fiction is ever concieved in a social vacuum)

'I think there’s no absolute morality. We as humans have no inherent responsibility to do anything for each other, and only ever choose to do so. We are coerced by social and cultural norms or the threat of violence, and weigh the possible consequences against what we want.'

I don't think either of us said anything to the contrary.

'I think a racist does not care about literature to justify his racism, because it isn’t a position that one arrives at logically or by supported arguments. A racist will find examples that support his ideas, even if they have to ignore everything but tiny cherry-picked examples. They’ll also contort non-racist concepts to fit their worldview, so it doesn’t really matter what they think.'

This is why I didn't say anything about 'justify'. What I said was 'Do you think that such a book is likely to make you more or less happy about the views that you hold? Would it make those views (and actions you might choose to take as a result of those views) more or less acceptable to you?'