Completely agree. I mean the idea of something that was created to be a children’s toy/pet to have any strong sexual urges like that makes no sense. I also think the concept of enfie toys (not only enfie pals) doesn’t make sense.
3 Likes
but that’s an absurdly lazy excuse for drama and conflict, preprogrammed or not. with flufftv they should at least SEE and HEAR how happy babies make their mothers, and be inspired by the mummah songs.
1 Like
Depends on which bits of lore you believe. For example:
The fluffies that got released were models early into development. They were built to breed quickly to allow more testing between changes. The original intention was to turn down their rate of reproduction before releasing them to market or only keep it in factory fluffies for the sake of cranking out more product. The fluffies we have now weren’t built for consumers or even completed which is why they have so many flaws.
Actually, what’s your version of how fluffies came to be? Same question to anyone who has a different version of the origin story if they feel like sharing.
3 Likes
It does make sense for Smarties to kill foals of certain colors I suppose, if you feel there have a reason why they Smarties as an intended thing from Hasbio. Although if they could ensure random Smartiness then its odd they’d use them to cull colors instead of somehow eliminating those colors, unless its just a repeating mutation that occurs, or some kind of reaction to the environment their mother is in. Like how the offspring of domestic pigs start growing tusks if their mother escapes to the wild.
Same with mares facing stressful conditions or mental illness killing unwanted colors.
I still see Fluffies as a heavy modification of rodents as a base creature, so the standard random stress-induced murder sprees being steered towards a less desired offspring first works.
Yes, there are exceptions where it makes sense, like for example when they don’t have enough food, and they want at least some of their babies to have a chance to survive.
1 Like
@anon80319800 I just saw your edit, and I definitely see what you mean with the Deviantart-artstyle and I agree.
I’ve also noticed this other artstyle, where fluffies kind of look like characters from Disney films like The Lion King. (I don’t know how better to describe it.) I’ve seen several different artists do this, but it seems to be more common on Reddit.
1 Like
I’ve seen a few of them. They probably come from the same type of people and both tend to be more popular on Reddit than here (As Reddit will be the main exposure for the community it makes sense.)
It’s another one of those artstyles that doesn’t really fit Fluffies. It’s a hard thing to describe what that actually means and it might just come down to personal preferences. At least it’s even rarier than the Deviantart stuff!
1 Like
Yes, it’s like a sub-group of the Deviantart-artstyle.
1 Like
I second this. The idea that the common fluffy is essentially a test model that got leaked too early is the only backstory that makes sense to me personally, given how unsuitable they are for their intended purpose.
And I honestly prefer it that way. The sharp, inherent contrast between what a fluffy is “supposed” to be and what a fluffy actually turns out to be is a big part of what makes them interestingly tragic / comic / endearing, imho.
And I think this definitely (and specifically) applies to their off-putting horniness. Though, admittedly, I have the sensibilities of a 12 y/o and find horny fluffies both hilarious and grotesquely cute.
1 Like
Then it lends itself well to how vastly different people interpret them and how humans behave.
Knockoffs from other companies, natural selection, and the post-apocalyptic decay of human society.
1 Like
I’m getting tired of fluffies being called biotoys instead of animals. No offense, it’s like saying a certain race or religion isn’t human. I mean until a fluffy spills out mechanical bolts and wiring when they get tortured, bleed oil or battery acid, be born with a memory chip, or make distorted cries when they die, then they’re pretty much animals to me. The biotoy reasoning was just made as an excuse to hurt and kill them.
Another unpopular opinion, if a mare has babies, and she hates a poopie baby or a bad baby (unless it’s an alicorn), then yeah, I’d let her kill them. It’d be a lot easier for me as an owner, the mare, and the other babies. Hell, the babies wouldn’t even know they had one less sibling when they were born.
2 Likes
Do you have an example?
Nope. Saw them ages ago and never bothered to save them
1 Like
understandable
1 Like
The “Biotoys” label as I’ve seen it is used to explain why their behavior constantly falls into the same unnatural pattern. They talk within days of being born, yet seem very bad at learning or properly using new words that aren’t names. They have an absurd color sorting mechanic that seems to select against the colors that would best let them survive in the wild. Etc.
They are alive like any other animal but their behavior was bestowed, not evolved. This doesn’t mean they can’t suffer but it does make them distinct in a sort of uncanny way. That doesn’t make the abuse moral, but I assume that’s the point. Abuse is indulging in the grotesque intentionally.
2 Likes