Barbie’s don’t scream for mercy though. In general humans tend to project anthropomorphized characteristics onto anything with even vaguely humanoid behavior and having a living, breathing, shitting organism that actually speaks and enjoys human (if childish) activities with neotenous would probably instantly make most people incredibly empathetic towards them, because if we see dogs as like furry people imagine how you’d react to something asking you why you’re getting up so early.
On the other hand I do see therapy fluffs potentially being trained to be hellgremlins because they’d be really, really, really good transferrence objects for people you hate. Think about it imagine all those times you saw a rapist or an abusive parent on the news and thought about what’d you do if you got your hands on em, or worse if that person was in your life and you never felt like you got revenge on them. And then someone offers you the chance to recreate them in a dumb, pathetic, weak little horse creature. Imagine getting to be the divine vengance you wanted, especially because I’m sure humans would probably relate very strongly to the other fluffs they victimize. That would be very proactive and very powerful!
Buh stress releef therapee!!1
No giving someone with sadistic and violent urges what is at best a perfect simulacra of a sapient infantile being is like giving crack to meth addicts so they stop being addicted to meth.
They don’t have to be hellgremlins for transference. Hellgremlins will still scream, beg, plead, cry, bleed and stink, so if that were the issue, than ALL fluffies would be off the table.
Besides, you started your quote of me a sentence too late.
You’re disregarding Cute-Aggression. It’s a real thing and is why many of us are here. Tearing apart a moving plush doll that is designed to be optimal squee cutesy can be just as cathartic as tearing into a hellgremlin.
Well on paper, but I doubt that any well adjusted person irl would act on said cute aggression to something that will beg for it’s life. Like it’s one thing in the realm of fantasy where it’s clearly a drawing that doesn’t scream at you and isn’t crying actual tears but it’d be super different if it was in front of you. So it depends on whether you want realism or fictional satisfaction.
I totally agree with you. If fluffies were real they would be coddled and protected.
But the question posed was how it work in universe. And in my headcannon fluffies have caused so much damage that people see them as artificial simulations. You could argue that NPCs in Skyrim, the Sims, or Red Dead Redemption beg and plead, but that doesn’t stop players. People in my headcannon have that level of detachment from fluffies. They see them more as organic tamogochis as opposed to sentient living beings.
Ok, as said due to how fragile they seem to be as long with some traits such as selecting for bright colors and utter defenselessness I doubt there’d be a real way for them to be an infestation. I mean as said it’s whatever you want but not everything has to be justified or treated as official headcanon because it’s enjoyable. Like I’m fine with people having super weak fluffies with no survival skills that are somehow an invasive species that’s wrecked the world, but that doesn’t make it logical. It’s the same with porn or youtube poop, why is Morshu buzzing when Link asks for dinner? Why is she so eager to fuck the Pizza guy? Because we enjoy it, plain and simple. No one is going through hoops to explain why it makes sense for either of those and if your enjoyment of fluffies is based on “horse toy go brrr.” why should it be any different?
And some people’s enjoyment comes from creating stories with internal consistency, made from their world building. I think this applies to most authors here. If part of my enjoyment of fluffies is thinking of a logical reason they would treated they way they are, I don’t see anything wrong with that.
It’s like people who get more enjoyment creating/discussion/participating in indepth analysis of movies/tv shows/video games than they do actually experiencing the media itself. Part of the enjoyment for me is thinking of the what-ifs. And no, my headcannon isn’t perfect nor 100% logical or consistent. But it’s fun for me to improve on it piece meal. It’s the boring dad hobby of building a mini city just to drive a tiny train around it. I like that boring aspect of the fluffy fandom.
Edit: I mean, it’s kinda why I’d respond to a meta question about psychology on a “Community Posts and Memes” category, it’s fun. I think that applies to everyone in this thread.
Idc about that aspect, mostly because of the fact that my main character is a green jellen and I have yet to bring humans into the story as characters.
They’re so full of ironies and contradictions I can’t help but think of them not as animals but as the very embodiment of annoyance. They’re not only parasites whose relationship with us is no different from a cuckoo bird to a pigeon, but a representation of what we could be if we forsook both our animal and civilized natures: the absolute worst parts of being a man, creature, and child. We look at them and see a fun house mirror reflection of what we could become. Humanity, stripped of the desire to improve, grow and create. Wholly rejecting civilization, yet demanding luxuries from it.
I see them as not really creatures but rather philosophical entities. I consider fluffies to be p-zombies, and to some extent anti-humans and anti-animals. We anthropomise everything, by putting different parts of animal and human nature together. Fluffies are frustratingly ironic: a wild creature that acts like a spoiled child, and an oversexed adult that considers itself worthy of your adoration. Their appearance is a trick: subconsciously, primally, I imagine the fluffy is so confident in its ability to fool you that it is content sacrificing the rest of its ability to survive. As one makes these connections in their minds, these hypocrisies and idiosyncrasies pile up, creating an array of insults to your intelligence that make fluffies very, very annoying.
I also don’t like comic relief creatures in media. So fluffies are a dive into “what if someone gave an entire species these cute traits… on purpose?” Because when you remove the cute veneer, your critical thinking snaps back and you recognize that a being who acts like a human toddler for the entirety of his life who takes advantage of every double standard there is as to never be held accountable for anything, so it can live in its own world where it always wins while everyone else grows as a person and suffers, becomes bloody infuriating. I know it’s very petty. But sometimes you just wanna be the bad guy.
Not sure tho, we are seeing a lot of progress in our universe, robots act and look even more “alive” everytime but they are not. If we give them artificial intelingence would they be “alive” or not?
Another thing I believe affects the psyche on both universes is the fact they’re not illegal to kill, they’re dispossable like things and programmed to love wich brings the question is they truly can feel love or not since they always claim they love something/someone but can shift it in order to survive since fluffies known no sacrifice for others. Example: The mothers who claim to love their foals, but in the wild they can eat them or even abandom them for running away when feeling in danger.
Many might see this as just a “biotoy” while others see them as “almost animals” it depends on each’s perspective.
Catharsis (from Greek κάθαρσις, katharsis, meaning “purification” or “cleansing” or “clarification”) is the purification and purgation of emotions—particularly pity and fear—through art[1] or any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal and restoration.[2][3] It is a metaphor originally used by Aristotle in the Poetics, comparing the effects of tragedy on the mind of a spectator to the effect of catharsis on the body.
So, for me, the Fluffs are a tool for catharsis for the reader and writers; what is, without a doubt, great for the mental health of anyone – because you know what you want to feel. Anger, sadness, pity, hope, etc…
.
You can put any emotion you want in them and, in the processes, work in yourself, releasing things that you didn’t know you had inside.
======================x================
Now, for the “in-universe” explanation, I believe it would be a little more complex…
See, we are animals, yes we are rational beings that are self-aware, but we are still animals, and because of that we are at the mercy of our most basics instincts.
Lust, power, self-preservation, dominance, control… (See Maslow hierarchy of necessity) .
.
As said by a writer in one story (I believe it was “tiny lives”), to be “a god for this little creature, to choose whether they live or die, if they are happy or in despair… it is… intoxicant!”
=================================================
We can, in this way, transport the idea to our universe/world. Living on this planet there are many creatures that may have a high level of intelligence and are even self-aware, like Orcas, Dolphins, parrots and monkeys etc… (See the tale of Koko, the gorilla, and the story about an orca who followed a whaler who killed his family and tried to take revenge).
.
Some of these animals have a great deal of emotional intelligence, like cows, pigs, dogs and cats… and yet, we keep them as pets and food. We all know about these relations, and yet, only few scientists tried to understand them… because that would break our way of life as the “only sentient being on earth”.
.
So, in conclusion, even if the Fluffies are real, they would suffer all the same.
.
Some would love them and take them as a pet and try to protect the right they have to live.
.
Other would abuse them because they are not humans, so they could justify their actions of sadism and violence. (Many already do this to dogs and other animals…).
.
Because of the rapid reproduction of the species and low upkeep, many would take them for meat and fluff, for the feces as fertilizer, and others would see them as a plague, because of the behavior of “invading” places in search of food, the sheer stupidity that could lead to property and financial damage (Chew a power line thinking is a “Sketty!”) Or even the potential to propagate diseases.
.
And some would just kill them because of fear of their intelligence and potential (or lack of) to evolve and adapt.
.
Well, at least, this is what I think.
I’d imagine that a good number of people who abuse fluffies are in fact psychopaths but there likely are a good number of people who believe (or have convinced themselves) that fluffies are just toys made of meat with simulated emotions. As a result, they may just view abusing fluffies the same way one would view killing NPCs in a video game like Grand Theft Auto or the like; sure they run, scream, and beg for their lives but it’s all procedurally generated…right?
I mean, it just makes sense. Through out history when have humans been able to be cruel to other humans let alone animals? When ever we were able to convince ourselves that they aren’t real people. The fact that fluffies are artificially created to the point they are actually programmed, not too unlike a video game character, makes it even easier.
I like to think a lot of people, not just abusers, view fluffies the same way people viewed replicants in Bladerunner. Most people weren’t cruel, they just viewed them the same way they viewed an apliance.
Headcanon: It’s allowed, it’s normal, it’s better than abusing animals. Crimes got lower because when you’re mad, it’s better to enjoy someone suffering instead of killing humans and have consequences. Also, there is quite a lot of money. People see it as something like destroying a puppy toy (those who bark, “eat” etc) or killing AI-generated characters in videogames. Behaves like a toy (cute, and happy and bubbly), talks like a toy, looks like a toy, therefore it is a toy
I have a bit different anatomy/creation headcanon, with the first prototypes being biological AI robots and then there were animal-ish brain with some wired neuro paths designed but they’re set in genes