Radiocaster: @Mahyar: "Silencing dissent" would be the moderators removing your posts. For better or for worse, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from other people's judgement.
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: 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”?
NotGodOkay: @Mahyar: Getting someone's account banned is not the same as "killing" someone and also you've proven that you deserve to be removed from the booru because of bad behavior and saying things that doesn't make sense to most people. You are delusional and it shows. I don't need to be an authoritarian to say all this.
NotGodOkay: @Mahyar: There's a lot of evidence towards you being delusional. And with this mental handicap also means that you don't take evidence seriously. Leave the booru.
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!
NotGodOkay: @Mahyar: Your argument is flawed here. Stop telling people what to draw or else those people are gonna get you banned. It's not you being right here, it's just you being a narcissist thinking that you're right on everything and everyone else is wrong. Leave before it gets worse for you.
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: 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"
Solus7: Hey hey hey, @Mahyar.
I know I might be a little late, but I just wanted to let you know that this piece wasn't directed towards you. I know in light of last night's argument that it might seem like it, but trust me when I say that it's a coincidence. It's just a redrawn meme from someone who used to be here long ago coming back.
Take a deep breath.
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.
Solus7: @Mahyar: I'm sure. It wasn't framed as anything like that in the artist's initial comment, and I can't read any significant snark under it or in the replies of others. I also don't see any point in escalating last night's argument (and especially to come back after a long time to do so), so I firmly believe it's safer to assume it's a coincidence than it is to assume it's targeted.
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: 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: @Rick2tails: Jumping to personal insults instead of the actual topic is unnecessary. I’m neither autistic nor a minor, and the situation was already clarified as a misunderstanding.
Mahyar: Putting yourself in my shoes, I think it’s understandable to be upset when users troll you and label you a censor, religious, or a hater. I did use some harsh jokes, but there was no malicious intent behind them.
Describe This Image As Dramatically As Possible
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Think about it for a second.
When your first reaction is “ban him,” that’s how authoritarian thinking starts.
- Reply
Why is it so one‑sided?
Why does disagreement automatically turn into “silence them”?
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
If this stops here, I’ll leave quietly.
Please don’t keep dragging my name into it.
- Reply
I know I might be a little late, but I just wanted to let you know that this piece wasn't directed towards you. I know in light of last night's argument that it might seem like it, but trust me when I say that it's a coincidence. It's just a redrawn meme from someone who used to be here long ago coming back.
Take a deep breath.
- 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
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
@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
Aggressive/conflict-prone: @NotGodOkay
Logic and fairness defenders: @asdf123, @Kazerad
Observers with sarcasm/critique: @GrizzlyBear, @Radiocaster
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply