I greatly dislike McGee for how he’s acted towards me and other people, but I still agree that it’s not fair to wall off satire of hugbox but not satire of abusebox.
4 Likes
4 Likes
MY GOD !
3 Likes
3 Likes
3 Likes
I do agree with you. Its the reason why I approached Carpdime and Squeakyfriend for feedback on this piece before posting it, and also the reason why I sought for their opinion. Its also the subject of much of my deep dives into history of the booru. I do agree that a person’s work should be judge by its own merit and authority, and not overly-reliant precedents.
That said
Here’s the thing:
Like it or not, the Fall of Cleveland is, or at least was, a big piece of fluffy lore, and was the basis for much storytelling and ideas in the initial phase of fluffybooru. And while it is a big 90 piece work, it was a labour of effort that overcame many handles, something that @meganonymous would point out. It has its place in fluffy history, as it should.
Continuing on that, people who built their lore and ideas from past and/or more popular creators would attribute some level of worth and with it, precedent to the people they are influenced by. @Carpdime has sighted @jberg360 as one of his influences, along with Buwwito and Quickhorn, with one of the ideas for Foal-in-a-can being based off a lore piece Jberg did draw. In that sense, one could argue that there is a reason to consider the value of popular ideas within the canon.
Its an issue that I feel needs to be raised because, and as much as I am do believe that the fluffy fandom actually has a diversity of canons and ideas which makes it unique and worth observing, some people would be committed to saying that some ideas are more popular and others and have merit for that reason. In addition, one of the hardest problems we have is arguing “what makes something is or is not a fluffy”? I know you’ve often said “so-and-so doesn’t feel like a fluffy”. But then what metric do we have to go by if we’re ever going to agree on what is or isn’t a fluffy? For me, Historical precedent seems to work as some guideline could be worked out based on what was generally accepted, as opposed to personal opinion. I know that why I consider to be a fluffy is a bit looser than your definition, based on past conversations.
3 Likes
Yeah yeah, fancy tech that has bodily functions. And no mechanical parts (barring certain headcanons). “TeCH Xd”.
1 Like
That is fair, but I have to ask. Are they dumber than a bag of bricks, more fragile than RipoffMcgee’s arguments and slower than me when getting up in the morning?
3 Likes
They are not super smart by human standards, no.
I generally feel their intelligence level is that off a human toddler to a 6 year old,
with some severe cognitive dissonance.
ie stupid but smart enough to survive in the wild. ( after several generations)
Shit’s not so fragile its broken by all
I mean I classify them as bio toys, so they have to be pretty sturdy to a degree.
Well…they waddle.
3 Likes
4 Likes
#FreeMcGee
2 Likes
Counterproposal:
3 Likes
Puppies with hooves
Waddle waddle waddle
4 Likes
I don’t see the hugbox satire. I see a satire (and I am really being generous with that word) about everybody else’s headcanon/the recent policy of sticking to fluffies over “other stuff”.
If you may, point out what aspect was supposed to criticize the “brainless hugbox”. I am aware of its existance, not denying that.
4 Likes
Yeah in my headcanon it just barely avoids going under due to fluffies becoming popular in spite of their premature release.
Being part of Hasbro helped a bit but they definitely aren’t Microsoft. Hasbio got lucky.
3 Likes
Yeah like that !
That’s generally what I imagine fluffies to be like how they walk and their general size.
Mine do anyway.
4 Likes
holy shit the thread’s still going?
2 Likes
Oh, was it that one eldritch-looking “fluffy” post of his? Yeah, I agree with you.
2 Likes