Blog:Should we forbid articles talking about porn parodies (usually Rule 34)?

'''NOTE: This blog is about parodies, not pornography overall. We condone pornography, and parodies are no exception. '''

So, should we ban pages criticizing porn parodies (usually Rule 34) in all of Qualitipedia? Reasons: Initially, I said: ''It's difficult to discuss without anti-porn, bias, kink shaming, nitpicks and even user-dependence. It also looks like an attack against the user who made such fan porn animation, comics or even art. Most importantly, porn parodies have nothing to do with the source material.''
 * 1) It can qualify as kink shaming, similar to fetish art.
 * 2) About Rule 34? It makes us look like we can't take a joke, because Rule 34 is just a meme.It's not worth taking any meme seriously, otherwise drama will start.
 * 3) Such fan works (animations, art, games, webcomics) are not worth reviewing due to the obvious efforts, and they are many and often free. Either way, they are pointless.
 * 4) Controversial reasoning: These pages make us look like we are slandering the creators of such fan art, IE: false accusations of child pornography ('aged up' characters, "all characters depicted are 18+" ), zoophilia (furry porn), objectophilia (robot sex) in their works. Yes, those are the serious crimes in many countires.
 * 5) The Rule 34 itself and such works have nothing to do with the non-erotic source materials at all. As I said, these pages are pointless.
 * 6) The pages criticizing Rule 34 and porn fan arts can be anti-free speech and anti-porn. Plus, it makes us look like we can't take a joke.

TL;DR:' Should we ban pages focused on Rule 34 because of kink shaming and user-dependence (like we banned pages about fetish art)? It includes any Qualitipedia wiki.

P.S. Who are your favourite Rule 34 artists & animators? Examples: Afrobull, alfa995, bluethebone, Diives, JinuSenpai, MrPeculiart, Shädman, Slugbox, Spazkid, ZONE