Its a problem I have with the fiction generally, especially with abusers. There could be interesting fiction about dealing with fluffies, but a lot of it comes off as torture porn in disguise
5 Likes
Yes it does make you feel like God (or at least a superior being)
2 Likes
I have defiantly read a few that read like torture porn.
3 Likes
That’s a hard question, I treat my pets like family but if I had to lean one way or the other I would say pet. Mainly because even though I would treat them the same as I do my real pets, i do understand they are toys.
4 Likes
Anyways Occulus I guess the distinction would lie in whether they can fight their instincts through emotional or moral reasoning. If they can do stuff like love a runt that emits runt scent or another strong instinct then they’re sapients, if not then they’re just a simulacra of sapience with animal level consciousness.
@OtherCoraline In terms of real life stuff, there is a correlation between this fandom and controversial political takes. Though most of it’s alluded to subtly unless it’s a rabid hugboxer telling anyone who produces abuse content they’re horrible people.
4 Likes
Depends on headcanon as
Thats one way they could be biotoys.
Its a matter of headcanon. If a writer/artist wants to depict a fluffy as a frankenstein chimera made up of different parts, programmed with a speicific set of codes, and thus following a certain prgraomming like a robot, then sure they could be considered a “toy” by that regard.
But thing is, a lot of fluffy ficiton isn’t like this. Plum isn’t like that, Avocado isn’t like that. I’d even say I consider Fillmore to not be like that - at least from how I’ve interpreted Filmore (I am perfectly fine with being corrected).
That said, there are artists and writers who have outlined that they see fluffies as “animals marketed as toys”. And thats where the difference begins. Some artists/writers have them as actual artificial constructs. Some have them as actual animals. And it becomes a matter of “depends on headcanon”.
I did an entire topic about this: What are fluffies - Biotoy or Animal? (Opinion Piece by Oculus)
Its one of the biggest questions within the fandom, and its adamantly clear that different people have different ideas on where fluffies are on the scale of toy to animal to humanlike. And I certain there is no general consensus
3 Likes
Well I know for sure they wouldn’t be toys my question is whether they are animals or sapients. If they are fully functioning moral agents who can simulate future events in their mind with minimal prompting they’re sapient. But they might function at dog levels with any separation between them and other social mammals being entirely illusory. If the former it’s funny when bad things happen to them if the latter it’s just really upsetting. It’s like how fluffies inherently hating poopie colors just sort of makes me sad. Like realistically I could see dogs acting like Plum and maybe Avocado, the other thing is if they ask why questions. No animal has ever done that before not even other great apes.
3 Likes
You can’t fault those hugboxers for calling a spade a spade. Even a broke clock is right twice a day, and all that
5 Likes
Ehhh, some abuse producers are decent people who enjoy dark content, there are some who have it as a fetish or are legitimately creepy about it but that’s not the overwhelming majority. Like Carpdime and Somethingcheeky and Gayroomate all seem like more or less well adjusted semi moral people.
3 Likes
The only animal ever known to ask a why question was Alex the African grey parrot. Fluffies to me feel like an extension of that. And regarding asking why questions.
There is a reason why Carpdime’s Avocado is special to me.
4 Likes
Oh, I don’t mean they can just hurt other fluffies, they’re capable of defending themselves (poorly, mostly), and I’m not saying they’re inherently worse than humans either but they are more prone to emotional responses like children.
The idea of a kid with the button for a nuke would scare the shit out of most people because they have no rationale and could push the button at the simplest provocation like kids tend to do.
Sure it’s an extreme example, but the logic applies to a basic reasoning creature like fluffies. If they’re mad they may throw a tantrum and scream or blast some ass at you, or in extreme cases, try to give sorry hoofsies. It’s that response that draws the line for me, discipline is of course a reasonable solution but I doubt I’d the patience to raise them if they were real.
As far as the speed of dispatching them, yeah quick and easy works best, (hence my stompy name) but torture is more complex than at first glance. Sure there are twisted people who derive enjoyment from punishing something that’s done nothing wrong, but you start to see parallels in human and fluffy behavior.
They look out for themselves first and foremost, and that’s just nature but it’s a truth we and they both deny while times are good. In times of strife though, the weak and the defenseless are always left behind.This denial pervades life as the law of the jungle and it’s globally accepted as natural, just look at any video from Kruger preserve in Africa.
But it’s the humanizing factor of fluffies that evokes the violent reaction in some people. It’s plays into a God complex that let’s the person believe their actions make a difference for the greater whole of fluffy populations, taking bad elements out and leaving a better whole. When souls are sent to hell, they are sent to serve a sentence for the sins committed in life.
That concept, (I believe) ties directly to the abuse often inflicted on fluffies that are judged to be guilty by the abuser. The price paid for their sins is in the pain they receive as penance from a human, who are admittedly their creators.
My two cents at least. (Or twenty, sorry I’m long-winded)
5 Likes
Well in that case they should be treated as people and not animals as they’re sapient. This makes keeping them less sense unless you want a fuzzy kid who never grows up. It also makes abuse less disgusting as it can be treated like horror.
3 Likes
Law of the jungle is a gross simplification imo, especially for a species with language which would most likely value informational kinship over genes. It’d be like saying it’s only natural for your cells to start trying to outcompete each other. Same for a fluffy herd, the herd becomes the organism and they become it’s constituents the fact that there are poopie only or non poopie or named herds with divisions of labor that most likely weren’t programmed shows that each fluffy is now basically a cell with the smarty unfortunately being the brain.
3 Likes
That was how it was originally. The original abuse figures like Anonymous and the Ringmaster were horrendous by virtue of either being a fanatsy creature, or something as horrid as the evil hacker called 4chan. Over time though, as the fiction got darker, some of that elements got lost
Thats one of the appeals of fluffies for some people, yes. But I thinkw e can both agree that an adult fluffy is “less of a kid” then an actual fluffy foal. Its like, the difference between Michael Jackson and Peter Pan. A bit too graphic, perhaps, but I hope it illustrates why one can’t see adult fluffies as being equivalent to children - they are adults.
By the way, I should stress one thing. This is one headcanon/hivecanon. Its the headcanon I go by when it comes to Avocado, as well as my general hugbox works. Its also how I think some hugboxers like Pinkyfluffy approaches fluffies.
4 Likes
But are they adults to humans in any way besides sexual maturity? To other fluffies maybe, but adult fluffies to humans check all the physical and psychological neoteny boxes that kids do, more than chirpies even. In the same way dogs are also forever puppies to wolves but we don’t think of that because most people aren’t in close social contact with wolves.
4 Likes
I think thats why fluffies strike me as such a controversial but interesting concept. I may be a hugboxer, but I think there is a danger to creating something that is so “neotenic”. I think its what Mayclore tried to achieve in his fiction about the industrialized breeding about fluffies. Its also why I use that earlier description.
@OtherCoraline I suppose a better term would be a “servile species”. But thats the point I’m making here. I think there’s a lot of interesting through controversial topics that could be explored with fluffy ponies. I admit it has to be done with nuance, but, and speaking as a person very familiar with discrimination, I relate a lot to fluffies. I’m not going to call people horrid, but, I do believe the fiction can be better in exploring ideas beyond just being “shock for the sake of shock”
3 Likes
This is what interests me , most the implications. Like how easily would a herd be distracted with toys, how much do mothers really love their babies, do they have imaginations? Like I sort of feel that a lot of hugboxers make fluffies too smart and abusers too evil and mean or stupid, they’re meant as pets and they don’t have any real fiercer ancestor to fall back to. They aren’t good for food besides quantity, aren’t good for labor they’re made to be harmless companions. Of course they’d talk 24/7 at first and just sort of course they’d go up to random doors and knock (something I find cute and disconcerting).
3 Likes
Regardless of who’s head cannon we are a part of they will be toys to me, Even if they are recognized as animals. Let me clarify that I understand that in their head canon they are animals (I accept and respect that) however if I were in that world, they still would just be toys to me as a individual. Please let me know if any of that was lost in translation.
TL;DR I respect others head cannon however how I would interact with them wouldnt change.
2 Likes
What in particular makes them toys compared to say pugs or glofish, not upset just curious.
3 Likes
whats worse, they’re a luxury commodity it isn’t socially acceptable for me to have ripped up and replace with nice, easy to look after, pretty flowering and enviromentally friendly clover because “it might spread to the neighbor’s lawn.” I want the whole lawn Idea banished back to the stupid aristocrats with hired servants who started it, please.
5 Likes