Mahyar: Anyone may appreciate, critique, or suggest improvements to my artwork; my response remains neutral.
Should you, as previously, attempt to affix irrelevant labels or diminish my work, know this: it is ineffective.
Past attempts at derision did not perturb me; they merely resulted in unnecessary wear on your keyboard.
Mahyar: The mockery I received did not deter me.
On the contrary, it compelled me to ensure my first hand-drawn piece reached its highest potential.
Criticism, when understood, becomes motivation.
Mahyar: Many of you doubted my abilities and mocked me.
I was not discouraged. Your criticism, rather, served as the catalyst that led to the creation of my very first hand-drawn piece.
Acknowledgment is due where it is earned—thank you.
Mahyar: I find it curious how quickly technical discussion is reframed as rudeness when it becomes inconvenient.
Art evolves through tension between vision and critique—not through applause-only echo chambers.
You are free to ignore my perspective.
You are not entitled to silence it.
Mahyar: @Raywingale: The tail should be shorter and thinner. Make the face rounder, more cartoonish, and clean up the colors. All details must be clear and analyzable. Lines, proportions, and FX need precise correction. This is basic stuff—if you want it to actually look professional, you need to fix these things.
Mahyar: Hence, I shall endeavor to conceal my personal opinions and moderate my humor, lest I invoke unnecessary complications. I have already demonstrated, with reason and evidence, that my intentions were benign, yet my efforts were met with disbelief. There is little more to be done, for comprehension on your part remains lacking.
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.
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: @Ofeerz: Hey, sorry about the misunderstanding.
I didn’t mean any harm; I was just sharing my personal reaction. The comment about Kazerad “turning his server into a nutcracker” was meant purely as a joke, not an insult. Your drawing is genuinely very well done; my issue was only with the content, not the quality or your intent. I didn’t expect it to turn into people labeling me as controlling or pro-censorship.
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.
Dramatic Descriptions
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Should you, as previously, attempt to affix irrelevant labels or diminish my work, know this: it is ineffective.
Past attempts at derision did not perturb me; they merely resulted in unnecessary wear on your keyboard.
- Reply
On the contrary, it compelled me to ensure my first hand-drawn piece reached its highest potential.
Criticism, when understood, becomes motivation.
- Reply
I was not discouraged. Your criticism, rather, served as the catalyst that led to the creation of my very first hand-drawn piece.
Acknowledgment is due where it is earned—thank you.
- Reply
- Reply
Art evolves through tension between vision and critique—not through applause-only echo chambers.
You are free to ignore my perspective.
You are not entitled to silence it.
- Reply
- Reply
What you choose to do with it is entirely in your hands.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I didn’t mean any harm; I was just sharing my personal reaction. The comment about Kazerad “turning his server into a nutcracker” was meant purely as a joke, not an insult. Your drawing is genuinely very well done; my issue was only with the content, not the quality or your intent. I didn’t expect it to turn into people labeling me as controlling or pro-censorship.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- 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