I think it’s a rationalization for ferals, some of there children will inevitably starve. Best to have a reason in there mind.
3 Likes
I don’t think it’s a pre-programmed situation, with humans many children weren’t given names until they were mature in case they died. I find it reasonable to assume with the death toll of foals that favoritism is in some way required.
6 Likes
- animal species are pre-disposed to have a favorite child if their a multiple in a litter(?) for survival reasons e.g. favorite = primary all others are back ups.
2.this one no idea but based of of basic animal imprinting it would affect its actions and ideas e.g. raised by a human gives preference to them over fluffies.
3.in other words purely made by the fandom for “justified” abuse but if it does occur and the child survives it can result in bad colours getting bestest treatment and good colours getting poopie babbeh treatment.
4.varies from “to the death” to “fuck it I can always make more best to run and leave 'em as a distraction”.
5.No purely for Hasbio breeding, sterile when sold.
2.Distraction/bright moving colours like most children’s cartoons these days/verenge for early release hope you enjoy it begging for children as we make it seem like the best thing ever.
3 Likes
So it’s not present in household pets then. Makes sense especially as fluffies have no attraction to survival instinct except what toys they find pretty. Alicorn and runt rejection is a lot more scent assuming fluffies are scent based and they seem not just disabled but “off”. Like kids would be killed or excorsised for not having a caul in Greece, or all sorts of shit in England which explains the changeling phenomena. Shit like this used to happen in pre modern times all the time, and if no one is there to explain it to them.
3 Likes
And if you want to explain domestic fluffies having a favoritism bias, then simply assume they were adopted ferals.
3 Likes
I’d say fluffies favoritism goes beyond the pale of natural favoritism in most stories. Like refusing to feed their other kids and risking their lives only for their bestes babbeh while casually ditching the others even if they’ll loose more offspring that way.
4 Likes
Superstition is often a powerful force, I can only imagine the iron grip it has on fluffies.
5 Likes
Due to their preprogrammed attachment to humans, foals don’t get distressed when you personally nurse them.
In regard of poopies, for e mares are divided into two groups: mill runaways and normal fluffies. Aside from not liking them as much as others, normal fluffies don’t hate poopies. Mill runaways is a different story. The idea that bad collors=bad baby was ingrained in their mind by humans, who care first and foremost about money. After several illegal mills were shutdown, the idea that bad collors=bad mummah wich was additionally fuelled by the constant desire to be a good fluffy, giving it almost a memetic effect, escaped into the wild. Mill runaways will always favor the baby with the most expensive collors, or the ones that look like them. Even if it means abandoning 5 of her own foals in favor of 1 pretty orphan.
Mummahs will try to fearfully protect their foals from any danger (except humans, because all strangers are nice misters to them) until they are scared or feel any kind of pain.
What is cuter then dogs and cats? Right, puppies and kittens. So yeah, it was a perfectly calculated scheme. Speaking about babies.
For me an episode starts with a add of a new expansive toy. Then this toy is placed in a safe room, after wich a recording of fluffy mummahs play time with their babbehs in the that safe roomv is played (with the occasional interviews with families that picked the new toy). In the end of the episode the fluffies tell the audience that babies make everything better and that they will be good mummahs and daù⁸ddies s a small inatruxtiiģ
6 Likes
-
Depends on both the fluffy and the writer/artist.
-
a) almost constant. Chirpies are extremely helpless, and poorly insulated by even fluffy standards.
b)Yes-ish. Fluffies, like most mammals, imprint upon the first thing they see and identify as ‘moving.’
In real life animals, this more or less has a profound and effectively permanently sets a few social proclivities, primarily that the imprinted creature is more likely to bond with something similar to it’s ‘mother’ than itself. In ducks for example, the ducks in question often preferred trying to court the doctor who was imprinted upon over ducks.
That said, whether that’s “scarred for life” or not heavily depends on whether your raising and releasing or not. If you just bought a foalcan and planned on raising them as your pet, probably not an issue, assuming imprinting works similarly(and there’s not any reason it wouldn’t). For a feral? You’re setting it up to die a cold, lonely death.
-
Depends on author and fluffy, just like one, as it’s part and parcel of the bestest baby phenomena.
-
It seems to vary depending upon author, though generally, very protective. In some, fluffies are shown to become aggressive to protect chirpies, even if they can’t do much to humans. In others, they ineffectually beg rodents to not eat their babbies.
-
No, the common headcannon is that Fluffies were intended to be controlled entirely by Hasbio, but the raid on their offices put an end to that plan permanently.
-
I always imagine it as a mix of the three. Can’t unrelease fluffy mares, so convince mares they need babies by bombarding them with footage of chirpies and talkies alongside targeted advertising so that the owner is begged for more stuff from hasbio, but keeps fluffies relatively distracted for a long-ish period of time.
5 Likes
In my headcanon.
1.1 All fluffies mom’s have a bestest babheh. It’s the healthiest and most colorful of the babies. It gets the first of everything.
1.2 foals need everything from their mothers like any newborn. It will be better behaved raised by a human. But not much different from being raised by their mothers.
1.3 there are poopie babbehs. They get the last of everything but their mothers still care for them unless they are sick or became disabled in some way. Then they will kill them. Mothers will adopt other foals but her own comes first.
1.4 pretty protective and responsible enough to raise them on their own.
1.5 Dams are not sold in case of glitches that make them overprotective.
- There’s many fluffy TV channels. Some of education for fluffy (recommended) some are to sell products. Some to f*** the owners lives. So “babies” episodes very to channel.
6 Likes
I actually answer 1 and 3 in this post here As for 2, I generally think that foals really just need milk, warmth and affection to thrive so as long as they are getting these they should develop without issue. In fact, since humans tend to be more competent all around, I would think that a fluffy raised by humans since birth would actually be far better off than a fluffy raised foal.
With regard to #4, I would think that an average fluffy is very protective of its offspring to a point. They have the instinct, not programming, to abandon their young if the possibility of rescue/protection is non-tenable so the mother will save herself; the whole she can always have more children instinct. Now, there are some fluffies with underdeveloped maternal instincts who will abandon their offspring at the smallest provocation while there are ones with overdeveloped maternal instincts who would literally die for their young; both of these were not intended by HasBio.
With #5, my headcannon was that pregnant dams were never meant to be sold except to breeders. Fluffies that were commercially sold would have been sterilized to Hasbro could keep a monopoly of fluffies. They would have advertised foals as the “LOOK MY PET IS AN ADORABLE BABy!” type pitch.
As for Babies on FluffTV, it is mostly just stock footage of babies but framed in such a way to make foals seam really appealing. This would be to try and get both mares and small human children who are watching to want to get a cute baby fluffy. There would also be adds in between the footage advertising the local Fluffmart “where you can buy your very own foal” or telling owners of take their fluffies to official licensed HasBio breeders if the mare wants to have her own. And of course, there would also be adds for official Hasbro foal raising merch which would be framed in such a way to say “only good mammahs have this stuff so their baebehs can be the bestest so they should ask their mammah or daddeh to get it for them.”
6 Likes
- Separate mother from the foals after the birth, they will crave for human attention and be more loyal to humans. And since human ill treat them the same, the odds of bestest babbeh will be near to zero.
- Hasbio ads/Teaching aid that end doing more harm than help
3 Likes
Most of your question one questions are more, ah, how to put it? They’re dependent on the fluffy/fluffies/owners in question. Mother number one may lavish all her love, milk and care on the baby that resembles her. Mother two may love all equally. Nature, nurture and situation all play a part in it.
Tl:dr long answers, too long to type easily.
2 Likes
1&3
I think this highly depends upon the situation the fluffy might find itself in. For feral fluffies with scarce ressources parental favouritism may be the only chance to keep at least some offspring alive. This would suggest that with deprivation the ressources would be allocated to one foal while the rest still may get some leftovers. It even seems logical that the chirpies would have to “fight” for “mummahs miwkie pwace” to a degree. The favouritism than just would be the selection of the actually fittest. This also may prevent the stigmatisation of “poopie babies”. In the long run I would expect ferals – living in the woods - to rather favour “poopies” due to their natural camo in the wild.
This of course may only be valid for the behaviour of ferals which at least have lived in the wild for some generations and this behaviour may be challenged by former domestic runaways coming in contact with the herd.
Domestics without these problems probably would not show favouritism to any degree due to the abundance of resources except for learnt behavioural patterns. E.g. humans showing an aversion towards some colours (your average fluffy mill, I guess). This also may be true for urban fluffies as by witnessing the adoption of “better coloured” fluffies the idea of getting a home if only the foals are pretty enough may be reinforced. One also should take into account the importance of speech by which fluffies are able to convey such ideas to others (or challenge said ideas). I see the possibility of a mare leaving her offspring behind to adopt or even steal a better coloured foal for this egoistic reason of getting a new “mummah” or “daddeh”, maybe even leaving her offspring behind without an adoption as she might assume it would be detrimental to her goal to bother humans with her bad coloured offspring. Though I doubt that she would abandon a “poopie” for just being a “poopie” unless something sets off this line of “reasoning” which to a certain degree then just exemplifies self-preservation.
2
Fluffies are social. As social “animals” they would need contact to other fluffies or any replacement that may fulfil their needs. Basic needs for fluffies – even chirpies – are interaction and communication (besides the obvious like food, shelter of course). I think that by caring for and talking to them the absence of a mother can be compensated. Even more so as they have the ability to understand human speech. This opens the possibility to actually explain to them why there is no “mummah” and tell them that it is not their fault, their “mummah” loved them and that they are safe. This should mitigate the effects of the loss. (Of course one also can do the opposite)
4
In general I think common Fluffies will not show any kind of aggression. Be it due to their programming, the experience that it is useless anyway or a combination of both. I assume Fluffies are flight animals. Due to their sentience – or maybe imitation thereof – they may be conflicted but will choose flight over certain death when it comes to protecting their offspring from predators yet I think they will go to certain length when it comes to protect their foals from other adversities like weather or hunger (with the limitations I made under point 1). This also includes to keep them out of harm’s way – at least if the Fluffy is aware of that harm. E.g. keeping their foals away from a clearing. Fluffies seem to be responsible within their limitations.
Maybe Hasbio just fucked up but I think it is reasonable to assume that with the foals comes an enormous market for even more supplies.
4 Likes
-
Common to basically all fluffies. I don’t think they’re cruel intentionally but they never examine their inherent biases. They’re kind of like a narcissistic parent in that they can’t even conceive of their personal instincts and favoritism not being objective natural law. No difference in treatment so long as everything’s comfortable and plentiful, but when feral or challenged for resources hierarchy emerges. Even the kindest fluffy that’s been taught to love all babies will eat a non bestest to make milkies for the bestest when there’s no other food.
-
Only until they open their eyes. Foal in a can basically proves this.
-
Common wherever tolerance has not been demanded by humans. In a competitive situation fluffies can even be convinced by a smarty to kill another herd and leave their poopies behind to adopt the pretty babies now without parents. If you notice fluffies that don’t reject alicorns and poopies don’t say they like them in particular, that they have embraced the uniqueness alicorns or poopies add to fluffykind, they say they like “all babies.” They never have a concept of liking their own genetic lineage in particular, or any foal as an exceptional individual, they just like babies like a six year old child does, as a general concept. If a fluffy was at the end of the Book of Job, it’d be perfectly fine with God having taken away it’s family previously if they had all been replaced with even better ones overnight.
-
From a fluffies POV they’re incredibly dedicated and enthusiastic, and they’re certainly willing to give their lives if cornered. From a human POV it’s like MTV Teen Mom and through ignorance and self absorption they take countless unnecessary risks. If there’s an easy escape route from something scary, though, they only take whatever babies they’re currently carrying.
-
No. Shouting biggest poopies and wickie cweanies and rejecting foals is gross and off-putting to consumers. I think fluffy breeding was emergent or necessary for pre production, but if the roll out had happened as planned, they’d all be sterile mules sold in foalcans. Breeding fluffies were not supposed to go public.
-
I think you’re correct. Since Babies encourages so much complaining and running away, I think they’d get sued if it was intentional.
4 Likes
On 1 and 4 is this just immaturity or is it a specific problem with fluffies in general? Like for example a lot of kids will miss their parents if they get new ones no matter the improvement. So it’d make sense assuming they’re like immature humans who will go to great lengths to keep their ratty ass teddy bears that they won’t abandon their old foals just because they’re used to them. Granted they may be numb in the end but I’d imagine they would rarely trade them when they were still alive even if the grieving is short. Also what if you gave them a brown stuffy friend? Would that raise poopie to at least second bestest, or do they just hate brown? If so then they’d probably be racist.
- How does the public treat foal rejection? Biggest poopies is fine, and lickie cleanies isn’t that gross, it’s oddly endearing. But do you think it factors into how many fluffies are thrown out, and are parents warned of this. If all fluffies were traumatically abusive and irresponsible parents, with a racism problem why would babies even be a thing unless you want to traumitize your child or at least make them hate their pets? Like wouldn’t it be jarring for a child to see what she sees as the sweetest and most motherly friends in the world turn into an abusive monster? Honestly if they aren’t just immature but actually are more narcissistic than humans on average I think that would be the main reason people hate them. Not shitting, not fluffspeak but how much something that goes on and on about love can be so fickle with it to their own progeny.
3 Likes
- Like people, I think there’s a number of factors. I don’t really think they’re racist, that’s a specific human ideology. Some social psychologists believe human morality mostly comes down to six foundations: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and purity vs disgust. Most modern Americans supposedly think care, fairness, and liberty are the moral foundations we should make important decisions around. Wherever or not the theory is true, I think it’s a useful metaphor to illustrate fluffies naturally have very strong intuitions about loyalty/authority, and strong feelings of disgust from dark green, brown, coal/slate etc. that overwhelm their other ethical considerations.
I also believe the comics that say feral herds that survive for a few generations mostly get rid of the brightly colored ones and keep the dark green, brown, coal/slate ones that camouflage. A lot of how fluffies natural tendencies express themselves depends on environment I guess. I think they’re stubborn but not totally unchanging or maliciously abusive.
- I think the public isn’t really in on how fluffies really are, for the most part. I think of fluffies-in-universe as still fairly new and trendy like teacup pigs or chiwoodle dogs where consumers just see the cuteness and don’t know about all the problems they have. Everyone kind of knows guinea pigs/hamsters will eat their young but still get them for kids never thinking it’ll happen to them. A lot of kids each year still get traumatized/bitter when proper precautions aren’t followed with those pets.
As to people despising fluffies once they find out a lot of them have narcissism issues that mean their notion of love is shallow: yes that’s basically what I believe.
3 Likes
Why is it they’re more narcissistic then humans at a similar level? Was it intentional or a known side effect?
2 Likes
That’s a hell of a lot of questions. I’m going to do my best to answer, even though my brain is fried right now.
- Most mummahs wouldn’t use the term “bestest babbeh” to describe any one foal. I tend to think of it as a generic term to describe their ideal for the whole litter (e.g., “Sketties am bestest nummies. If mummah num bestest nummies, den mummah make bestest miwkies fow bestest babbehs!”) A mummah might use the term to describe a foal that shares its color, but I don’t see where there would be much favoritism shown outside of a conditioned mill setting.
- Fluffies are idiots, so a foal would probably be better off being hand-raised by a caring human. That being said, the foal would need to be taken before its eyes open or after weaning to minimize trauma.
- (a) not very, outside of a mill setting (or a particularly spoiled-ass mare. (b) No. They might adopt another foal/litter, but they wouldn’t abandon their own foals just because they were ugly (same caveats apply here as in (a)).
- Protective? Mostly, though results may vary. Abject terror may be a common cause for parental abandonment. Responsible? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- Yep. At least, this was a stated reason in Soon-Mummah Specials.
- [100% pure, undistilled headcanon] “BABIES”, like most other original FluffTV programming, was intended to be pure marketing and entertainment. Of course, the end result was the triggering of maternal urges among domestic mares (whether or not the showrunners and sponsors intended this was unknown), and the deluge of complaints resulted in a smattering of “educational” content intended to show how hard it is to responsibly raise a litter was included.
As with everything else in this fandom, your mileage may vary.
5 Likes
wat dat
2 Likes