Just ignore the chuds and you’ll be fine. It’s a group of distinct breeds with varying characteristics that are linked together based on looks. A key characteristic of a lackwit is somebody who talks about them like a single breed
Its not about being correct or wrong Im worried about, I simply wouldn't voice an opinion, but there is an instinctive reflex when certain dogs walk past.
Thank you I got around to reading it and realised I had already read it a couple months ago I think. Thanks for reminding me, I bookmarked it now to re-read in the hopes it sinks in because it's rather cerebral. Like my instinct still is "dog looking like pitbull = scaryy!"
I get antsy when I walk by any large dogs since I'm small and pretty weak. There's this one family in my neighborhood who has their tiny son walk their giant Malamute and whenever I walk by them I can't help but think, "If that dog decides to tear my throat out for some reason I am so incredibly fucked."
I'm not too enthused about dog ownership in general, even putting safety aside. It's exceedingly rare that I encounter dog owners who have given their dogs proper training and socialization as well as consistent physical and mental stimulation. I say this as someone that loves dogs but would never own one because I know I just don't have the mental bandwidth to give them the care and attention they deserve.
I'm that ignorant lol, malamute = fluffy why that's not scary at all!! I also lived with a couple who had this huge fucking sledding dogs/wolf crosses that were really lovely, if a bit lively so that would color my opinion as well.
So reactionaries have a flawed association between certain types of dogs and what they represent.
(X breed) are more badass, they're more violent, they're more masculine, they're more acceptable for a man to own, they're more loyal, etc. Unfounded associations, ofc.
Bulldogs (esp French bulldogs) were a lot more bourgeois than they are now. They were associated with bloodsports, yes, which earned them a certain reputation for being a masculine fightin' dog. But it was more likely due to them being smaller (but not too small) and cheaper to feed for said bloodsports while also having a shorter snout, compared to something like a borzoi which would have been detrimental to fighting.
Aforementioned reactionaries seek out those particular breeds associated with violence and machismo and whatever.
Said reactionaries are reactionaries, and are therefore bad at raising dogs.
Said dogs are neglected, not trained or actively trained to be aggressive
Said dogs get the blame for their behaviour if something bad happens and not the humans that created it. After all, they're already associated with violence!
Said breeds are strong enough to cause severe damage IF they act out, which gets reported.
Future reactionaries continue the trend.
It's a feedback loop. Within pop culture, the established "violent" breeds are depicted as violent. It's not a poodle that's attacking strangers in the street. """Smarter""" dog owners are turned away because the "violent" breeds are less safe! Which in turn boosts the desirability of those "violent" breeds to future reactionaries. A shitty dog owner's dog mauls someone? Don't self crit, blame it on the dog. Others see and are like "oh shit! That's what I need, a badass dog because I'm a badass". Gets said dog, ends up being a terrible owner. Ad infinitum.
PSA: if you’re anti pitbull you aren’t a comrade
Seconded
k bye
Please help my ignorance I know nothing about dogs and their breeds so I cant tell fact from fiction.
Just ignore the chuds and you’ll be fine. It’s a group of distinct breeds with varying characteristics that are linked together based on looks. A key characteristic of a lackwit is somebody who talks about them like a single breed
Its not about being correct or wrong Im worried about, I simply wouldn't voice an opinion, but there is an instinctive reflex when certain dogs walk past.
Here I explained all this in great detail with multiple academic sources here 2 years ago. https://hexbear.net/post/166819
Thank you I got around to reading it and realised I had already read it a couple months ago I think. Thanks for reminding me, I bookmarked it now to re-read in the hopes it sinks in because it's rather cerebral. Like my instinct still is "dog looking like pitbull = scaryy!"
I get antsy when I walk by any large dogs since I'm small and pretty weak. There's this one family in my neighborhood who has their tiny son walk their giant Malamute and whenever I walk by them I can't help but think, "If that dog decides to tear my throat out for some reason I am so incredibly fucked."
I'm not too enthused about dog ownership in general, even putting safety aside. It's exceedingly rare that I encounter dog owners who have given their dogs proper training and socialization as well as consistent physical and mental stimulation. I say this as someone that loves dogs but would never own one because I know I just don't have the mental bandwidth to give them the care and attention they deserve.
I'm that ignorant lol, malamute = fluffy why that's not scary at all!! I also lived with a couple who had this huge fucking sledding dogs/wolf crosses that were really lovely, if a bit lively so that would color my opinion as well.
So reactionaries have a flawed association between certain types of dogs and what they represent.
(X breed) are more badass, they're more violent, they're more masculine, they're more acceptable for a man to own, they're more loyal, etc. Unfounded associations, ofc.
Bulldogs (esp French bulldogs) were a lot more bourgeois than they are now. They were associated with bloodsports, yes, which earned them a certain reputation for being a masculine fightin' dog. But it was more likely due to them being smaller (but not too small) and cheaper to feed for said bloodsports while also having a shorter snout, compared to something like a borzoi which would have been detrimental to fighting.
Aforementioned reactionaries seek out those particular breeds associated with violence and machismo and whatever.
Said reactionaries are reactionaries, and are therefore bad at raising dogs.
Said dogs are neglected, not trained or actively trained to be aggressive
Said dogs get the blame for their behaviour if something bad happens and not the humans that created it. After all, they're already associated with violence!
Said breeds are strong enough to cause severe damage IF they act out, which gets reported.
Future reactionaries continue the trend.
It's a feedback loop. Within pop culture, the established "violent" breeds are depicted as violent. It's not a poodle that's attacking strangers in the street. """Smarter""" dog owners are turned away because the "violent" breeds are less safe! Which in turn boosts the desirability of those "violent" breeds to future reactionaries. A shitty dog owner's dog mauls someone? Don't self crit, blame it on the dog. Others see and are like "oh shit! That's what I need, a badass dog because I'm a badass". Gets said dog, ends up being a terrible owner. Ad infinitum.