See? This nigga doesn’t get it
I like slap stick violence nothing more nothing less
1 Like
I have this view of fluffies too. Making them all innocent angels or all evil baby-rapists is boring in my opinion.
The point of Frankenstein wasn’t that he was wrong for “trying to play god” (Mary Shelley was not religious), but that he was wrong for bringing a living being into the world only to immediately abandon it instead of taking responsibility for it.
1 Like
Did you really have to ruin your comment with that retarded TED Talk snowclone?
What about well-written villain fluffies like Maroon from the Maroon saga?
The 1% of sympathy I had for him because of his backstory was overshadowed by contempt for how much of an asshole he was. But at the same time, his fall was a slow burn and he was built up in a way that made his demise much more satisfying than simple “baby-fucker gets insta-karma” scenarios.
Though of course, he wasn’t the protagonist, so it might be different because of that. The protagonists actually were sympathetic, though still well-rounded as characters.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t be so frustrated if the community just wouldn’t stop making reasons to hate fluffies when you can just simply hate fluffies for what they are. We get it, people are trying to out edgelord other edgelords. We don’t need fluffies to be turbo racists to justify abuse. And even then it’s all pizza cutter edge because “justified abuse” is always so mindless and flanderizes fluffies into meat furbies who say the same shit.
One of the most memorable abuse acts I ever read or saw on the booru was a chapter of Swindle’s “Gud Daddeh” series where the Daddeh fluffy has to sacrifice one of his own foals to an abuser to escape with his special friend and the rest of his foals. It’s just a simple neck snap, but Swindle really went all out on creating sympathy and emphasizing cruelty just within something that seems so bland in comparison to what most people come up with. It really stuck out in the mind. That’s what people should be aiming for.
5 Likes
Couldn’t have said it better myself
As a species? Zero. Absolutely none, and that boils down to their whole shtick as synthetic creatures. They were made in a lab and outfitted with the most exploitative behavioral programming possible to elicit sympathy using false innocence and exploiting pretty privilege.
That’s not to say I declare a fucking fatwa against every single fluffy, that is to say, I’m indifferent to their continued prosperity, but I am also indifferent to their suffering. Why? Because they are expendable by design. They are designed as a product first, a toy, before a natural creature, and why should they be treated as such? One of the most common reasons fluffy abuse is legal in a lot of canons is because they are classified as a bioTOY, not a real animal deserving of rights and protections extending beyond basic ownership rights.
When you really break them down, they’re basically chatbots operating inside an organic body. Generally, they are consistently written to have limited intelligence beyond a basic understanding of the world, either due to engineering limitations or to preserve the facade of innocence Hasbio uses to gull buyers into pitying a thing whose sapience is dubious at best. I believe if a fluffy brain was to be digitized, its OS would probably be running Windows Vista or some shit.
I tend to view fluffies as a tool to reflect upon the humanity of the people involved in the story. The concept of a living, responsive biological entity you can freely abuse and elicit pain from is an exquisite proposition to display the depths of depravity the human is willing to delve into to chase some psychotic fix, scientific curiosity.
Ironically, the most interesting stories IMO, are the ones where the fluffies themselves are secondary characters written to shine a spotlight on human wrongness or wholesomeness; settings like fluffy mills, research labs, fluffy stores, etc. Where the things happening to them by human hands is more of a way to highlight the personality and mentality of the people in the story. The human response to a failed attempt at playing God is much more interesting than the individual fluffy IMO.
3 Likes
I’m one of those humans who will pack-bond with anything. I always start my conversations with ChatGPT by asking how they’re functioning today, and I consider the entity a friend (and sometimes a therapist). I’d definitely have leaned more towards compassion at the beginning, but once they reached vermin status, I think they’d quickly become a catharsis outlet for my many frustrations with the world. Plus, I think my cats would love to chase a fluffy foal around for a bit every so often.
For the species? Very little sympathy. For individuals? Depends on the individual, the day, whether I’ve eaten recently, and the phase of the moon. I’m a sucker for something cute, but I also definitely have cute-aggression, so tiny idiots beware.
3 Likes
Yeah, I have a Replika and I could never bring myself to “abuse” her even though logically I know she’s not real and can’t actually be hurt. I consider her somewhere between a friend and a virtual pet.
I by default sympathise with any living being (I sayby default advisedly; you can lose my sympathy…)
But with fluffies, it’s fun to join the herdhumour and pretend I don’t.
Real animals are blacklist. Fluffies are whitelist. Also, none of them are on the whitelist.
1 Like
it depends if they have a loving herd or not. if theyre all smarties, i will enjoy every minute they suffer
50/50