Fluffies gaining animal rights

That’s just most of Unicorn in Maroon, isn’t it?

1 Like

We don’t talk about HIM around here…

I will surely use this ancient, true fluffy knowledge for something…

that would be the crux of the problem how much can you change till you are not writing about a fluffy . if everything is in Flux and ever changing what is a fluffy if you can just disregard established ideas or as you said what is the central mythos . I always thought it was of human decadence and fluffies being completely unfit to understand the cruelty of the world around them but still finding away to survive in it without losing their innocence.

now it seam fwuffy wuv ou is all you need to make a fluffy

just look what is going on with the abuse cunts fluffies are just things to have violence committed on . that is what I fear happening fluffies just becoming a prop in their own story because everything must give way to muh head cannon

That is actually an interesting take, to be fair.

But at a certain point in time, all those staples of fluffies as we know them now were just that, someone’s headcanon. Unless I am mistaken and people literally voted for them to become dogmas.

That many people liked and adopted ideas like the Cleveland Incident or Smarties being the spawn of Satan as opposed to cuddly bundles of love, simply means the original author’s headcanon was well received.

I think this is an interesting area to explore. It could lead to some interesting hugbox and/or “weirdbox.”

For my part, the humans in my timeline eat fluffies while at the same time understanding that fluffies are thinking, feeling creatures that take a position on their own existence. For this reason, they take great pains to make sure that fluffies remain under the illusion that they are pets, even if the vast majority of them, numbering in the billions, are in fact livestock. Humans paper over this apparent moral conundrum by describing it as hilarious.

As a relative newcomer I adopted the Biotoy label since I thought that was the established canon. Since then I’ve kept it in place but I’ve gone a little more grey with the system.

Legally, Fluffies have no rights, to the law they’re just advanced technology and there is nothing to be done about stopping the cruelty inflicted upon them.

Morally however, people are free to be outraged and disgusted by that same cruelty.

People are just as able to save a Fluffy as they are to hurt it, just down to personal preference

1 Like

no one voted .writing like water fallow’s the path of least resistance

One thing I actually have to concede.

How do we know what makes a fluffy an actual fluffy?

Do we stick to the oldest fluffy story?

Can pegasi glide and unicorns sling spells?

Somewhere in between?

The fluffspeak, the love for sketties and general innocence to the reality of the world?

The lack of animal rights?

How many of these traits are enough and how many are too little?

And how can we decide it, without limiting artists?

That’s a conundrum to be sure.

I think it falls to the content creators to decide what aspects matter the most and least individually, with an understanding that discarding too many elements risks going against the core idea of fluffies.

1 Like

we should limit artists. I could find a novel solution within a set of rules or I could just ignore the rules , it’s the difference between original star wars and the prequels and sequels

In my headcanon, abuse and mills are illegal, but still very common, with people getting busted for it a lot.

And nobody was saying that if you change that aspect, the rest would remain the same. In fact, that’s part of the logical follow-up I was referencing, if you change the way Fluffies came to be, then naturally you must also change the way Fluffies grew up in the world.

Love me some absolutely baseless hugboxer hate, which is hilariously ironic given that abusers do this far more often

First of all, what on earth are you talking about? We were talking about how changing aspects of the narrative background of Fluffies is a totally legitimate writing technique if employed properly. Nobody was talking about changing the entire concept behind Fluffies, you took my comment out of context and to an extreme.

While I don’t deny some of the points made in this post, it’s important to realize the community has only gotten to this point because we were open-minded and inclusive. There’s something so needlessly hostile in the approach of denying any creative venture that’s different from the norm, I’m not saying to globally change the basics of Fluffies, but I do think it’s totally legitimate to deviate from the norm. As many of you like to say, “If you don’t like it, don’t read it”.

Contrary to popular belief, the ratio between abuse vs. hugbox is about 60/40 and be as it may I’m just not willing to forsake a good chunk of the userbase just because some people aren’t happy with their creations.

As far as I’m aware, no. Like most aspects of a Fluffy, it was a headcanon that evolved over several stories, people just made stuff and then decided “Yeah, that’s good, let’s keep that”. It’s because of this that I truly believe even if some of the approaches for new stories are ridiculous or far-fetched, creativity and exploration of new ideas lies at the core of what Fluffies represent and should not be suppressed, if anything it should be guided to be done more tastefully.

At the end of the day you have to realize that Fluffies came from MLP, where such concepts were absolutely normal. Fluffies only devolved into the creatures we see today because of repeated iteration.

This is a totally legitimate criticism that I myself find of much greater threat than anything else mentioned here. Fluffy stories should be about fluffies, they should not be about people that happen to interact with fluffies.

For this we wanted to write a proper summary, though that’s a contentious topic, once you establish a common baseline all you do is further limit creativity and risk alienating some folks. There are many commonly known tropes that people universally accept as gospel truth, such as that Fluffies come in 4 varieties, love spaghetti and come in many colors. But the exact details of these tropes aren’t established, for instance, do Fluffies like spaghetti and know spaghetti even if they’ve never been introduced, or is the idea of skettis being good something that is taught at a young age and transformed into a Fluffy myth? Additionally, there are many contentious ideas that are still widespread, but not colloquially accepted, such as hellgremlins or cannibals.

At the end of the day, the idea behind Fluffies is that we take a few of the building blocks established in other stories and iterate on them. If you don’t like something, don’t include it. Just make sure that it makes sense within the context of your stories.

2 Likes

markiplier-preesh

I for one am a detractor of both (unless the cannibal is a regular fluffy forced to eat other fluffies for abuse/out of necessity and has to deal with the psychological side of it aswell), but I cannot deny that some stories involving them had me roped just from the sheer masterful writing, causing me to ignore my personal distaste to focus on how good the story was.

Good thing I have no love of the excess of any of your boxes .

I need only change what fluffies are based on just one little change to a background aspect and boom fluffies look like dinosaurs is that change to much or would you accept it as a valid interpretation of fluffies. If not why not

I’d assume that if your fluffy doesn’t resemble something ranging from a miniature fluffy pony to a fluffy pig-horse meant to resemble a cartoon pony, then well…

You have drawn something that’s not a fluffy.

Beyond that, altering visible physical traits such as overall shape, size and well, species, is a lot more noticeable than say, fluffies having laws protecting them (from respectable, honest citizens at least).

Minor deviations due to art style are usually expected, look no further than comics. But unless you give a really convincing reason or make it willingly ridiculous, having batman be replaced with a blue whale wearing an oversized cape and hood will end up poorly received.

1 Like

Why would the look of a fluffy be of anymore consequence then if a fluffy is a animal or a toy

Imagine, if you will, a feral fluffy who lives in the forest.

The world the story is set in has said fluffy accepted by society as an animal.

He gets cornered by a wolf.

The fluffy is very likely to die. It is smaller, weaker and slower than its quarry.

Now imagine another world, where “fluffies” are regarded as biotoys, but look like 10 foot high dinosaurs with sharp claws and teeth.

The wolf is literally being chewed on by the “fluffy”.


See how much more radical the change is from the classic “biotoy pig-horse is hunted by a wolf” in the second example, where the fluffy’s been replaced by a biotoy t-rex, than in the first, where the fluffy is called animal?

(I know you’re willingly exaggerating, but I was laughing my butt off imagining the wolf pouncing into a bush with high pitched babbling coming from it, only to see the dinosaur come out.)

1 Like

Why would a Dino fluffy act in any way other then how a fluffy acts . It was just one change what fluffies are based off as inconsequential as a fluffy having rights

You invoke that loser who made Velociraptor fluffies.

For shame.

Edit for clarification: the Velociraptor headcanon, specifically.

If you don’t know ask the staff to trigger some PTSD.

1 Like