The problem with discussing “what would we do if fluffies were real” is the fact that different artists and writers have different ideas on fluffies. Something as simple as “what do fluffies look like” has no definite answer - so many people have different ideas on how fluffies. should look. Hell, I based my main written series on how different each fluffy artstyle could look.
From there, it becomes the question of asking to what extent are fluffies a problem, or if they are even a “problem” within the universe the artist or writer is depicting. I know Waggytail never obsessed about fluffy as vermin, and even openly explored them as an ownable pet.
I really feel like it just becomes an excuse to explore some deep-seated preference for abuse and torture. Granted, not all abuse-centric artists or neutralboxers go that far - Shadysmarty once did a comic about fluffies being a pest but, after a while, they were mostly eradicated, and the last remaining feral family in a city dies to accidental abuse. It was a gory story, but the beauty of it was that, even though it showed a period where abuse was openly allowed, the primary action was focused on uncaring, oblivious accidental abuse.
I think its because of their nature as a neotenic animal with sapient/sentient qualities. As Vaught mentioned to me earlier in this topic, there’s a lot of disturbing implications regarding fluffies, especially if one humanizes them (which I do). I think the implications of fluffies are interesting from a science-fiction and specualtive angle, but I find that these ideas are heavily marred when some edgy and grimdark people are in it only to jack off to the blood and gore