Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The willingness to live in make believe, and the willingness to treat that make believe as if it were reality. Everyone acts on fictions every day, some are just socially acceptable. Like, do you think countries and currency really exist, or are they really just collective fictions we find useful?
You make a very good example of exactly what I'm talking about. Countries are indeed fictional, and the misplaced belief that they are in some way a natural reality is a significant part of what leads people to start talking about killing each other in the name of their country. Fictional entities aren't just ubiquitous, they're essential to civilization. Even laws against murder are fictional entities, but I don't t…
No, people kill each other because others have things they want, countries are just a means of organizing such endeavours, but let's not go on that tangent.
The point of accepting that we all depend on fictions shows that real vs. fictional is not a meaningful measure of healthy vs. unhealthy, and the latter is what we should actually care about, not the former.
> Thinking a fictional character on your computer screen is a life relationship partner is a slip away from reality that is surely a mental illness.
You're just arguing for fictions that are the status quo as if they're "healthy" without having to do the hard work of proving they're actually healthy, or the new "virtual" thing is actually harmful.
The distinction of real vs. fiction is simply not relevant, what's healthy or unhealthy is what's relevant, but you don't get to call it unhealthy without empirical evidence to support such an assertion which is why you're trying to fall back on calling it "not real", and leaving "not real implies unhealthy" implicit. Except "not real implies unhealthy" is false.