Mahyar: Factual Record of Comments and Interactions
@damrok4321 described the situation as the comment section being “filled by ranting of some unhinged dude” and framed my criticism as a failure to understand the difference between porn and artistic nudity, while reassuring the artist and dismissing my presence as a nuisance rather than engaging with the argument itself.
@GrizzlyBear characterized me as a “snooty know-it-all” and mocked my phrasing (“Logic and knowledge are my weapons”), then argued that my reaction itself was driven by instinct. While partially acknowledging that overindulgence and addiction to sexual impulses can be harmful, he dismissed my criticism by stating that fan-art does not require narrative coherence and questioned whether I had even read the comic.
@NotGodOkay repeatedly escalated the situation by calling for my removal from the platform, stating that moderators should deactivate my account. He labeled me “delusional,” claimed I had a mental handicap, called me a narcissist, referred to me as a “brat,” and repeatedly told me to leave or stop talking instead of addressing the substance of my argument.
@Radiocaster stated that the issue was not my opinions themselves but my tone, describing my comments as emotionally driven, tactless, and thinly veiled attempts to sound intelligent. He questioned my sincerity and framed the discussion as venting rather than genuine critique.
@asdf123 explicitly pushed back against this framing, stating that he did not see the rudeness others were accusing me of, that my posting style was strange but not malicious, and that acknowledging porn as mentally damaging does not equal promoting censorship. He also pointed out the hypocrisy of users preaching open-mindedness while ganging up on a single dissenting voice.
@Solus7 intervened calmly, clarifying that the “Haters gonna hate” artwork was not directed at me and was a coincidence based on an old meme. He encouraged calmness and de-escalation rather than confrontation.
@Zargothrax provided historical references and links showing that the comic’s creator had previously drawn Katia nude and that sexualized content had existed before. He argued that my criticism should be presented as my own position rather than being framed as defending the creator’s intent.
@Kazerad, the creator of the comic, stated that he is not opposed to lewd fan-art, referenced Rule 34, and explained that one of the comic’s themes is that characters and ideas do not fit neatly into simple categories. He did not accuse me of bad faith or demand my removal, and described the discussion overall as surprisingly cordial.
Throughout the exchange, my position remained consistent: I praised artistic skill, criticized content direction, and argued from narrative and contextual grounds. Calls for silencing, personal insults, and mental health accusations originated from others, not from my initial critique.
Mahyar: What I want to clarify is what last night’s debate was actually about. It was never about banning art, controlling artists, or censorship. It was about direction, meaning, and context. Specifically, whether turning a character whose core identity is comedy and narrative into explicitly sexualized fan-art adds anything meaningful, or whether it undermines that character’s original role.
My point was that constant sexualization is instinct-driven and ultimately unproductive. It does not add depth or progress to art or storytelling. I believe modern thinking should aim for meaning and coherence instead of defaulting to raw instinct. I also clearly said that I do not like seeing a character defined by humor and story being reframed primarily as pornographic material. My position was never “this should not exist,” but that this direction adds nothing meaningful and damages the character’s identity.
I acknowledged the artistic effort and praised the design, shading, and execution. My criticism was about content choice, not the artist. As I said directly: “I admire the design, the shading, the effort, everything. But not this content.” I never told anyone what they are allowed to draw, never attacked anyone personally, and never argued from a religious or moral standpoint. The critique was purely about framing and narrative coherence.
Some users understood this and clarified intentions, while others responded aggressively, labeling me delusional or narcissistic and attempting to silence me instead of engaging with the argument. That escalation is what turned the discussion hostile.
For context, yes, the original comic contains adult language, sexual jokes, and disturbing situations. I am aware of that. However, the comic itself is not pornographic. Sex is not its central theme, and sexual arousal is not its goal. Nudity in the comic is accidental, framed for humor, and often censored. The fan-art removes that framing and presents the character explicitly for sexual stimulation. That shift in context is what I criticized.
My criticism of the content and its reliance on old instincts was not a criticism of artistic quality, nor an attempt at artistic control.
Mahyar: @Solus7: Hey Solus7,
Are you sure this meme has nothing to do with last night’s argument?
Because… well… there’s a naked yellow cat frolicking around, basically screaming “haters gonna hate”.
Just making sure it’s pure coincidence before I read too much into it.
Mahyar: @NotGodOkay: Let this fucking Mahyar disappear... I said right from the start that I don't want to control anyone! But you tried to liken me to a "controller"
Mahyar: I’ve said I’m disappointed. I’m not interested in continuing this.
If this stops here, I’ll leave quietly.
Please don’t keep dragging my name into it.
Mahyar: @NotGodOkay: Are you upset because I don't agree with you? Do you blame me for all those comments under that painting? If you remember, I said: I admire the design, the shading, the effort, everything! But not this content... because it was made to stimulate instinct... And then I said: This is not natural. This is something that if Kazrad knew it existed, he would use his server hard drive as a nutcracker... which was mostly a joke, but then you came and said: @Mahyar: No one cares but you. And that's where you started the discussion... I mean, if you hadn't started it, all that discussion wouldn't have happened!
Mahyar: And what kind of freedom is this when it’s one‑dimensional?
Why is it so one‑sided?
Why does disagreement automatically turn into “silence them”?
Mahyar: @NotGodOkay: Why? Why does disagreement automatically make someone your enemy?
Think about it for a second.
When your first reaction is “ban him,” that’s how authoritarian thinking starts.
Mahyar: @NotGodOkay: What are you all even mad about?
You got what you wanted, your art, your booru, and your little mob victory.
Enjoy it. I’m done caring. It’s clear this isn’t a space for discussion but childish stubbornness.
Mahyar: I see a new piece has arrived-titled “Haters gonna hate.”
Okay. Thank you for making it clear that you operate like dictators.
Instead of engaging, you silence opposition and double down on stubbornness.
Fine. Create whatever you want. This is you, this is your pen, this is your booru with 2009 graphics.
Create and enjoy.
Mahyar: @damrok4321: @asdf123 may be new here, but he’s clearly paying attention.
Understanding doesn’t come from account age, it comes from actually listening.
Mahyar: And the difference between me and them is this: they are many, I am alone. They attack, I defend. They promote base reproductive instincts, I promote honor.
Mahyar: @asdf123: I just told them that this art style is bad for a comic character, because it's a comedic/bitter story, it has adult language but it never directly shows the explicit content. And you know what they did? They attacked! Like a locust! They didn't even listen to what I was saying! I'm talking about respecting the character, but they called me "religious" they told me "you get information from Google" they told me "you're not an artist, you just know how to cut a picture from a comic and put it in a picture" But I never made fun of their art, even if you scroll down you can see I admired this art and said: I admire the design, the shading, the effort, everything! But not this content... because it was made to stimulate instinct... Meaning we are human, we shouldn't rely on old instincts like our cavemen ancestors, we should be honorable... But alas... I'm a clown! Why? Because if I weren't a clown, I wouldn't be here to have a philosophical discussion... Now compare for yourself, who is more ruthless...
Mahyar: @GrizzlyBear: Yes, I read the comic. And I saw that poor Katia was constantly getting drunk, losing her clothes and then someone ra.ped her... Yes, I read it. But! Whenever Katia got naked, firstly it was an accident, not intentional, secondly there was always a censorship frame on her body (not like this picture where Katia's ass is in the frame) and of course the atmosphere of the comic was comedy! There was never a direct sexual atmosphere, even if Katia got naked or used adult language. Katia Managan's comic is in the 18+ category, but the atmosphere is not considered sexual. It's mostly comedy, like Family Guy! Sometimes it has adult jokes but never shows sexual organs.
Mahyar: @NotGodOkay: I am not entirely against banning sexual “fan‑art” for other characters (e.g. rajirra); that decision is entirely up to the individual. My problem is limited to the fact that a specific character—katia, who is defined as a source of humor and story—is turned into a sexual object. If the same kind of sexualization‑entertainment were applied to an antagonist (e.g. rajirra), I would have no problem with it, because the antagonist’s role in the narrative is usually negative and anti‑heroic, and his transformation into a sexual object does not interfere with the main purpose of the story (which is to focus on humor and the main character). This position separates my stance from any religious considerations or restrictions; it is based purely on cognitive principles and on preserving narrative coherence.
Mahyar: Alright, let's look at this from a neurobiological perspective.
When people see a character, the first systems that react are the fast sensory reward circuits.
Low level pattern detectors send the image straight to the limbic system, where the amygdala and nucleus accumbens generate quick reward predictions.
Anything that triggers a rapid dopamine response gets prioritized automatically.
Narrative intent, character depth, and the creator’s boundaries are processed much later in the prefrontal cortex, the slow and energy heavy part of the brain.
So many individuals default to whatever interpretation produces the fastest reward with the least cognitive effort.
Mahyar: I'm not saying "this content bothers me."
I'm asking why such content should exist in the first place.
My objection is about respecting the character.
Why should a humorous, narrative-driven character be reduced to a sexualized toy?
This isn't about sensitivity or personal discomfort.
It's about preserving the artistic integrity of a character whose creator intentionally avoided explicit content.
Mahyar: @Radiocaster: And why am I so greedy like a vegetable steamer? Because I don't like to see Katia become a consumer toy... Yes! I like to keep it in the artistic/comic framework (even in the story, Kazerad never directly showed nudity or the scenes where the Orc ra.p.ed her, even when he wanted to show his nudity he at least threw in a censored frame!
Mahyar: @radiocaster: Katia is miserable... She didn't get lucky in her story, nor from fans, nor from paintings... It's like the whole world hates her... What's the problem with people with her? Whenever we search "Katia Managan" on Google, 90% of the photos are Katia's ass and pussy (I apologize for my language... of course, what's the point)
Mahyar: Well, look... it's useless. It was once for mating, but now? We're licking an LCD! Why? Because instinct dictates, but where do we discharge it? On a miserable virtual cat who was drunk and ra*ped all her life (yes, you're right, kazerad himself hated Katya)
Mahyar: We talked about it before, that all this is just to stimulate the mating instinct... The important thing is that humans are in the primate group, humans are an advanced type of animal, so they have the same old animal instinct.
Dramatic Descriptions
- Reply
- Reply
Aggressive/conflict-prone: @NotGodOkay
Logic and fairness defenders: @asdf123, @Kazerad
Observers with sarcasm/critique: @GrizzlyBear, @Radiocaster
- Reply
@damrok4321 described the situation as the comment section being “filled by ranting of some unhinged dude” and framed my criticism as a failure to understand the difference between porn and artistic nudity, while reassuring the artist and dismissing my presence as a nuisance rather than engaging with the argument itself.
@GrizzlyBear characterized me as a “snooty know-it-all” and mocked my phrasing (“Logic and knowledge are my weapons”), then argued that my reaction itself was driven by instinct. While partially acknowledging that overindulgence and addiction to sexual impulses can be harmful, he dismissed my criticism by stating that fan-art does not require narrative coherence and questioned whether I had even read the comic.
@NotGodOkay repeatedly escalated the situation by calling for my removal from the platform, stating that moderators should deactivate my account. He labeled me “delusional,” claimed I had a mental handicap, called me a narcissist, referred to me as a “brat,” and repeatedly told me to leave or stop talking instead of addressing the substance of my argument.
@Radiocaster stated that the issue was not my opinions themselves but my tone, describing my comments as emotionally driven, tactless, and thinly veiled attempts to sound intelligent. He questioned my sincerity and framed the discussion as venting rather than genuine critique.
@asdf123 explicitly pushed back against this framing, stating that he did not see the rudeness others were accusing me of, that my posting style was strange but not malicious, and that acknowledging porn as mentally damaging does not equal promoting censorship. He also pointed out the hypocrisy of users preaching open-mindedness while ganging up on a single dissenting voice.
@Solus7 intervened calmly, clarifying that the “Haters gonna hate” artwork was not directed at me and was a coincidence based on an old meme. He encouraged calmness and de-escalation rather than confrontation.
@Zargothrax provided historical references and links showing that the comic’s creator had previously drawn Katia nude and that sexualized content had existed before. He argued that my criticism should be presented as my own position rather than being framed as defending the creator’s intent.
@Kazerad, the creator of the comic, stated that he is not opposed to lewd fan-art, referenced Rule 34, and explained that one of the comic’s themes is that characters and ideas do not fit neatly into simple categories. He did not accuse me of bad faith or demand my removal, and described the discussion overall as surprisingly cordial.
Throughout the exchange, my position remained consistent: I praised artistic skill, criticized content direction, and argued from narrative and contextual grounds. Calls for silencing, personal insults, and mental health accusations originated from others, not from my initial critique.
- Reply
My point was that constant sexualization is instinct-driven and ultimately unproductive. It does not add depth or progress to art or storytelling. I believe modern thinking should aim for meaning and coherence instead of defaulting to raw instinct. I also clearly said that I do not like seeing a character defined by humor and story being reframed primarily as pornographic material. My position was never “this should not exist,” but that this direction adds nothing meaningful and damages the character’s identity.
I acknowledged the artistic effort and praised the design, shading, and execution. My criticism was about content choice, not the artist. As I said directly: “I admire the design, the shading, the effort, everything. But not this content.” I never told anyone what they are allowed to draw, never attacked anyone personally, and never argued from a religious or moral standpoint. The critique was purely about framing and narrative coherence.
Some users understood this and clarified intentions, while others responded aggressively, labeling me delusional or narcissistic and attempting to silence me instead of engaging with the argument. That escalation is what turned the discussion hostile.
For context, yes, the original comic contains adult language, sexual jokes, and disturbing situations. I am aware of that. However, the comic itself is not pornographic. Sex is not its central theme, and sexual arousal is not its goal. Nudity in the comic is accidental, framed for humor, and often censored. The fan-art removes that framing and presents the character explicitly for sexual stimulation. That shift in context is what I criticized.
My criticism of the content and its reliance on old instincts was not a criticism of artistic quality, nor an attempt at artistic control.
- Reply
Are you sure this meme has nothing to do with last night’s argument?
Because… well… there’s a naked yellow cat frolicking around, basically screaming “haters gonna hate”.
Just making sure it’s pure coincidence before I read too much into it.
- Reply
- Reply
If this stops here, I’ll leave quietly.
Please don’t keep dragging my name into it.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Why is it so one‑sided?
Why does disagreement automatically turn into “silence them”?
- Reply
Think about it for a second.
When your first reaction is “ban him,” that’s how authoritarian thinking starts.
- Reply
- Reply
You got what you wanted, your art, your booru, and your little mob victory.
Enjoy it. I’m done caring. It’s clear this isn’t a space for discussion but childish stubbornness.
- Reply
- Reply
Okay. Thank you for making it clear that you operate like dictators.
Instead of engaging, you silence opposition and double down on stubbornness.
Fine. Create whatever you want. This is you, this is your pen, this is your booru with 2009 graphics.
Create and enjoy.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Understanding doesn’t come from account age, it comes from actually listening.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
When people see a character, the first systems that react are the fast sensory reward circuits.
Low level pattern detectors send the image straight to the limbic system, where the amygdala and nucleus accumbens generate quick reward predictions.
Anything that triggers a rapid dopamine response gets prioritized automatically.
Narrative intent, character depth, and the creator’s boundaries are processed much later in the prefrontal cortex, the slow and energy heavy part of the brain.
So many individuals default to whatever interpretation produces the fastest reward with the least cognitive effort.
- Reply
I'm asking why such content should exist in the first place.
My objection is about respecting the character.
Why should a humorous, narrative-driven character be reduced to a sexualized toy?
This isn't about sensitivity or personal discomfort.
It's about preserving the artistic integrity of a character whose creator intentionally avoided explicit content.
That's the point.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply