site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3043 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Dog culture is just a unique form of brood parasitism. They are like any other superstimulus. What porn is for sex, what streamers are for friendship, what dramas are for romance, etc. That is what dogs are for raising children. They grab the relevant hardwired reward systems without any of the messy complications of dealing with actual people who can have their own lives and develop their own agency. Nothing more than a low-stakes, ersatz sense of fulfillment.

Objectively, I can't feel much more than disgust for dog culture when I see the shit and piss covering my city, the daily cacophony of barking, the glimmer of slobber residue lining products in grocery stores, the stories of bites and maulings. Dog ownership is easily one of the highest negative externality hobbies that society just accepts without question (see even this thread: "And why are dogs the best?" "Literally nobody can raise an ethical objection to giving dogs healthier, longer lives, right?"). I would put so much money on the table to live in a city that completely bans dogs and actually enforces it.

More importantly, dogs have evolved their behaviors and appearances to most effectively hijack our instincts. You look at a golden retriever and it looks like it's smiling. It hops around and wags its tail and it looks like it's happy. But is any of that actually a reflection of its internal mental state or are these just behaviors we subconsciously selected for because it's pleasant to us. Do they play with us because they enjoy it or because we programmed them to obsessively need it? Maybe it's both, but if they were actually miserable on the inside because we bred them to crave human attention the way an addict craves heroin there's no way for us to know.

To me it seems akin to a putting a smiling face on a robot or setting ChatGPT to max sycophancy. We are just more susceptible to projecting human assumptions onto dogs because on some level we know that we made robots and LLMs, but we rarely think about what we've done to dogs. They seem constantly anxious and bored, because we wanted them to always be willing and able to play whenever we feel like it. We've stripped away so much of their basic instincts they don't even realize it's not the best idea to eat their own shit or lap up their own vomit. In some cases we've actively bred for deformities because some find them "cute."

They are craven, pathetic creatures that only exist to feed into our narcissism. It would be hard to convince me that the world wouldn't be better if dogs never existed. For us, and maybe even for them.

Do they play with us because they enjoy it or because we programmed them to obsessively need it

Same question can be asked about humans. p-zombies and all that. Do other people really like you, or only pretend to like you to get on your good side (and eventually betray and hurt you, of course). It's a long stairway down to hell this way. I'd rather stay up here out of it, and pet the dog.

We've stripped away so much of their basic instincts they don't even realize it's not the best idea to eat their own shit

You need to do a bit of reading. Eating shit has very little to do with stupidity and lack of instincts and very much to do with nutrition. Of course, modern house dog rarely needs it as a proper owner already provides them necessary nutrients in much better form, but this is not depravity, and measuring different species by standards of modern Western hygiene is only a step away from "my dog/cat is a vegan" (those kinds of people need to be isolated on a barren island where there's nothing to eat but each other).

If you go for a ragebait, at least make it not an ignorant one maybe?

Dogs eating their own shit is not an evolved nutritional instinct, they aren't rabbits. Dogs will eat some quite nasty things because they think they taste good- used menstrual products, rotting meat, creepy crawlies, etc- but not poop. Poop eating is actually a den-cleaning behavior which can usually be prevented by providing a clean environment.

As I said, I personally never witnessed any dogs eating their own shit, so I can only go by literature, not empirical data. Your reason is mentioned among others, but I can not also exclude others. In any case, it's not an evidence of some kind of depravity of the dogkind (even if in the case of your explanation, it is an evidence for depravity of the owner).

I think the fact that you would consider P(other humans are p-zombies) even on the same order of magnitude as P(dogs are essentially p-zombies) is essentially the point I'm making.

Eating shit has very little to do with stupidity and lack of instincts and very much to do with nutrition.

I'm aware of animals that eat others' shit that has been through a different digestive tract and therefore has a different nutritional remnants, but please do enlighten me if the prevalence of eating one's own feces is more common than I thought.

Also, I see you left out the part about the vomit. Is there some nutritional value to that I'm also ignorant of?

Yes. First of all, a lot of what you call "vomit" isn't, it's regurgitation. That can happen when the dog expels food that hadn't reached the stomach yet. That can happen from time to time, though if it happens frequently there might be some problem with the plumbing somewhere on the way. But could be just biting more than they could chew, or stomach, quite literally. Obviously, there's no reason to waste good food just because it's slightly wet. Second, regurgitating is a frequent way for a parent to make food more easily palatable to children, and a dog may occasionally return to this childish behavior. Third, dogs have a chemical analyzer that most of us can't even dream of, and with that, if they see something that has viable nutrients mixed together with iffy substances, they could separate one from the other and eat the good parts without eating the bad ones. Just like eating carryon, for example. You probably would be revolted at the thought, but for many species - including dogs - it's a perfectly good meal, if you know what you're doing. There's also an instinctive behavior to clean up after themselves (to hide one's smell, for example, which both protects the dog and does not let the prey know the dog is near) and since the dog doesn't exactly have pockets... It could also be that a particular dog is unwell, of course, or is unable to realize eating something that smells good is not necessarily good for them - same as happens to many people too, just visit any local McDonalds store. Generally, if the dog vomits or regurgitates a lot, then that's the actual health problem. If it happens once in a while, usually not a big deal, and tells no more of their degeneracy than having an occasional quarter-pounder with cheese tells about human's.

Again, I must remind you that dogs are not humans, and what is disgusting and maybe harmful for you, is not necessarily so for a dog. If you started trying to lick your own butt as a means to maintain hygiene, your relatives probably would have you committed, but for a dog it is normal (and for many other animals too).

but please do enlighten me if the prevalence of eating one's own feces is more common than I thought.

Coprophagia happens a lot in herbivores, because plants are tough to digest (I think you can continue this line of thought). Eating their own feces in dogs is actually not that common, but happens from time to time - though other species' feces are usually more appealing to them, for reasons you pointed out (though for a well-fed domestic dog there's no serious nutritional reason, but again the dog might not know that). One of the reasons puppies might do it is microbiome transfer (the gut has a lot of beneficial microbes, and guess what's the most efficient way for a mother to transfer some to the child). On the other hand, the pups may not have good hygiene habits yet, and in the absence of Pampers... But this is not that common in adult dogs actually. Of all dogs I knew well (about a dozen), none had any interest to their own poop. Research I saw shows only about 1/4 of dogs engage in this behavior, and it could be caused by various causes - from bad nutrition to bad training to psychological problems (anxiety->drive to hide->drive to remove one's smell->you can guess). But this specific thing is not universal for dogs at all.

Appreciate the deep-dive, though it certainly hasn't done anything for my utter disgust at being licked by them.

tells no more of their degeneracy

In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to assign any sort of moral degeneracy to the dogs themselves. Rather, I believe we've warped their neural circuitry in ways that are cruel and maladaptive, much like we've done to the limbs and airways of certain breeds.

With the licking, you do need to be careful, it is understandable. Since dogs pretty much have the only way of cleaning themselves, their mouth may not be always as clean as one would prefer, and also a lot of owners neglect dental hygiene because it's impossible to teach the dog to brush their own teeth and floss, and they often dislike those procedures quite intensely, so it could be an expensive visit to a veterinarian to get their mouth in order. And dogs are as poorly evolutionary adapted to modern refined-sugar high-carbs diets as humans are. So being licked by a random strange dog is not always a good experience.

This is a very impoverished way of seeing the world. You could use the same reductionist logic to say that love is nothing but chemicals firing in the brain, or that morality is nothing but dressing on cold, utilitarian game theoretical outcomes to push cooperation.

It's one way of looking at life, that has perhaps some truth to it, but is ultimately deeply flawed.

This is a very impoverished way of seeing the world. You could use the same reductionist logic to say that love is nothing but chemicals firing in the brain, or that morality is nothing but dressing on cold, utilitarian game theoretical outcomes to push cooperation.

This is orthogonal to my point. I'm basically talking about p-zombies. My disagreement is not about the value of love, morality, loyalty, etc. I just take issue with dog owners who insist that these are qualities that one can find in dogs. I consider humans to have all been produced in a similar enough mold to go about my life assuming that they aren't all p-zombies. Dogs come from a very different path. One that I interpret as producing something closer to a p-zombie. I believe Jane Doe when she says she loves to ski. I have doubts Fido loves playing fetch any more than Claude loves to code.

If you were to suddenly go comatose with only your dog around, how long do you think before it starts eating your face and gnawing on your ribs? Is that what you call love and loyalty?

If you were to suddenly go comatose with only your dog around, how long do you think before it starts eating your face and gnawing on your ribs?

Various very unfortunate experiments show to us humans frequently resort to cannibalism once starved enough. Including consuming their own offspring, for example. As I said, if you step on this stairway and walk on it consistently, with open eyes and cold logic, it won't lead you to a happy place.

For a bonded dog? Your corpse would stink and the city would show up before it started to eat you. They’ll eat feces first.

Seconded. If you break everything down to its molecular structure, then yeah life is pretty goddamned stupid and no one should try for anything. "The only philosophical question is suicide" and all that.

Sometimes you just have to let fun, stupid things be fun and stupid. I do this all the time with sports, Christmas, raising kids, etc.

This is the most Motte post I've read all week. It's also the first thread I've read so there's that.

I grew up with dogs, but mostly very well-trained dogs. I get your intolerance for dogs, or at least I get your intolerance for dogs that run amok. Dog people (a term I use loosely) often think if they have you over you'll be fine with the dog nuzzling up against you as you're trying to eat the bean burrito. Isn't Buster cute? Look he's hungry. There is also an unquestionable smell of dog in most every indoor dog house. Not necessarily feces, but definitely dog.

I do like dogs and I get that, too. Except most of the dogs in Japan, which I consider odd mutations of what may have once been noble strong breeds but are now tiny, yappy, dew-eyed over-coiffed and overdressed trip hazards. As in you'll trip over them.

We have cats now. Entire different animal type requiring an entirely different mindset. I won't belabor the obvious that everyone already knows when I write that.

I do get your impatience for dogs, though. Though yours is more a hatred and disgust. My own impatience is mostly for the owners. One of the many reasons I quit reddit was the fawning subculture of cat people who would post what they imagined were adorable videos of their cats innocently destroying some expensive tchothcke, or grabbing their McDonald's nugget or whatever embarrassing fast food they were eating, usually in bed. I would typically bite my tongue/typing fingers regarding their questionable hygiene, and instead post a benign "Train your animal, please" and be downvoted to kitty hell. Ok maybe once I said "WTF Train your fucking cat."

I feel as if you were in the wilderness or countryside and had a loyal dog you might change your mind. I could be wrong, though.

Except most of the dogs in Japan

I wonder if dog culture in Japan is more considerate of non-dog lovers than in the US, or if lack of consideration and assumption that dogs are some unalloyed good is just a feature of dog owners that transcends local culture.

I do get your impatience for dogs, though. Though yours is more a hatred and disgust. My own impatience is mostly for the owners.

I would say my hatred and disgust is mostly for the owners as well. My feeling towards the dogs themselves I would liken mostly to how you might feel about a dog-sized cockroach or tarantula that people could not stop shoving into your face so it can rub its secretions on you. For whatever reason (probably a heavier than usual dose of autism, even for a place like this), I'm largely immune to the wiles of most dogs and find them rather ugly (the ones that basically look like wolves can be cute, but the more obviously their appearance has been selectively bred by humans the more off-putting I find them).

I feel as if you were in the wilderness or countryside and had a loyal dog you might change your mind. I could be wrong, though.

I have a hard time ascribing "loyalty" to a dog. Their behaviors are compulsions that humans chose for them, some because they give the appearance of loyalty and that makes humans feel good. I could see how a dog might be useful in a wilderness scenario, but my feelings toward it would be no different from those for ChatGPT sycophantically praising me when I ask it for code. They do what we programmed them to do and don't have the agency to do otherwise.

ChatGPT sycophantically praising me when I ask it for code.

That's the best part of my workday right there. Some hours I use more tokens self-glazing than solving the problem.

By "programmed", do you mean conditioned via training or something like selected through breeding?

Both, but with more emphasis on the latter. Owners tend to anthropomorphize dog psychology in a way that I think is in contradiction to their unique evolutionary history. A human was more likely to keep and breed a dog that not only followed commands but exhibited behaviors we instinctively pattern-match to things like happiness and loyalty while doing so. Over generations, these became as hard-coded as the instinct to eat. Modern owners don't consider this and assume that these are genuine displays of affection (I can't definitively say that isn't the case, but I don't think it's the most likely one). From the outside looking in, it feels like watching a bunch of people who are convinced that an LLM really is their best friend - some sort of twisted mass psychosis.

Are you saying you don't nuzzle up to your ChatGPT?

Regarding tarantulas and cockroaches, kill them with fire. We used to have quite large (big-ass) cockroaches in Alabama, and once I felt the hair on my neck stand up when I saw one launch itself from a high wall and flutter its infernal wings as it glided to the floor. As for spiders I am a lifelong arachnophobe. The camel spiders of the Kalahari (yes yes not arachnids) compounded that trauma tenfold.

That is what dogs are for raising children.

My malamute used to earn her keep by killing rattlesnakes in the wood pile. I'm pretty sure I'd get a visit from the county if I made my kids do that.

Shades of this classic essay: https://mattlakeman.org/2020/03/21/against-dog-ownership/

I think dogs if you have a sizable piece of land (or even big yard) are totally fine. Or if you already have kids. I absolutely have some internal judgement towards any couple I see that has a dog and no kids (probably should go to confession)

I'm certainly not the first or only one to come to these conclusions. I genuinely believe dogs have some sort of mind virus effect. They've found an exploit in our circuitry that blinds many to the obvious. People are defensive of their dogs right to slobber on you with a ferocity I haven't even seen for children.

I absolutely have some internal judgement towards any couple I see that has a dog and no kids

I do wonder if pet culture has an appreciable suppressive effect on fertility rates the way that porn addiction can cause withdrawal from attempting real-world relationships.

There's some evidence that pet ownership makes childbearing more likely.

Anecdotally, I've observed similar among friends in the US, but I think for them it had more to do with a confounding desire to nurture that made them more likely both to want pets and to want children. Pets being relatively low-stakes makes it more sensible to try them first before children.

Also once you're used to taking care of a dog every day, a child seems more manageable. You've already adopted a lifestyle that involves being home on a regular schedule.

Caesar [Augustus] once, seeing some wealthy strangers at Rome, carrying up and down with them in their arms and bosoms young puppy-dogs and monkeys, embracing and making much of them, took occasion not unnaturally to ask whether the women in their country were not used to bear children; by that prince-like reprimand gravely reflecting upon persons who spend and lavish upon brute beasts that affection and kindness which nature has implanted in us to be bestowed on those of our own kind.

With like reason may we blame those who misuse that love of inquiry and observation which nature has implanted in our souls, by expending it on objects unworthy of the attention either of their eyes or their ears, while they disregard such as are excellent in themselves, and would do them good.

Plutarch: Pericles

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats