Image drawn by Squeakyfriend sometime in 2016. At the time there was a heavy debate regarding the nature of fluffies, which is related to the surge of bad-smarties or as Foxhoarder calls them, hellgremlins.
Is that debate kind of resolved now?
Seems most portrayals lean on random defective problems in genes or programming that have explanations. Or as bad things they learned to do, or asa very rare bad seed and very rare good seeds among a lot of simple neutral morons.
Plus many works portray their standard behavior as pretty neutral, being short-sighted, naive, and guided largely by impulse so they make poor choices since most are in their first or second year of life, possibly mere months. Their sins are manufactured by an abuser looking for something to punish which the character acknowledges the hypocrisy of.
To put it blindly, its not resolved, and I doubt it’ll ever really be resolved.
I mean like there isn’t actual arguments on what they should all be anymore. The accepted default neutralbox seems to possess a mix of Hellgremlin and tiny saints, with only divergent hivecanons implying they’re all stupid selfish monsters or it takes a mutation to be evil.
Fluffies in pain are the only way.
Some recent events make me think otherwise. To put into context at the time when the image was made, some commenters on the booru “expected” fluffies to be easily spoilt, be smarties, shit all over the place, or just be the absolute worst. The reason why Fox made the big deal about the whole “hellgremlin” thing was because people just automatically assumed fluffies would do bad things. Its why I keep stressing that its a matter of canon, and that one cannot expect a depiction of fluffies to apply to everybody.
But like I said, the matter will never be really resolved.
This approach is overdone. I’d rather advocate for more hugbox, or at the very least, more balance. Fluffies to me are more interesting when they are not in pain.
Both are good.
We reached an agreement "depends on the headcannon
Yup, specially when in pain