WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

469

I was in the grocery store parking lot and I drove by a car filled with older ladies; they were all wearing rainbow tie-dye clothing and had poodle haircuts. I was thinking about how they kind of looked like the human equivalent of those stupid little yapper dogs, and it was a kind of lightbulb moment for me.

I started thinking about how those stupid little yapper dogs have become the predominate dog breeds in the United States, along with every other manner of weird-looking mutt; the kinds where, out of curiosity, you say to the owner, "what kind of dog is it?", and the owner replies, "oh it's just some kind of mutt." This theme has become so common place that such replies have become a figure of speech.

Most people never really ever stop to think how strange this is. Imagine you were in a park and a birdwatcher was nearby; you see a pretty bird fly by and ask, "that's a really pretty bird, what kind is it?", and the birdwatcher replies, "oh that's just some kind of random mutt bird". Imagine this with regards to any other family of animal; this would be very strange.

This is probably coming across like a race post of some kind, but it's primarily not. The thing that struck me about these ladies and most everyone else you see around town these days, and how their fitness and stature relates to my thoughts about dog breeds, is that the DNA of animals in nature tends to change very slowly, not because of any kind of in group preference, but because the very existence of each species is predicated on a never ending contest amongst the best and fittest of each kind there is little room in most animal families for mating preferences based on trivial social matters or temporary styles (of which, primates perhaps offer the closest analogs in nature).

Dogs of the past for noble creatures, good for hunting large game or birds, or for defending individual humans or tribes from outside threats. They were big and beautiful animals, such as German Shepherds, Golden Retrievers, Hounds, 1800s original Doberman Pinschers, etc.

Then life became easy in the west and people, in our excess, began to cross breed dogs to obtain traits that were practically worthless but socially important. The end result is this mishmash of worthless little yappers that serve no purpose other than to make their owners say "awww"; these breeds live twice as long and have huge litters.

Dogs and humans seem to be the only families of animal that have been bred down from noble creatures into slovenly mutts. And the interesting part is that the way in which dogs have changed through this process mirrors the way humans in the west have changed; we've become shorter, and uglier by classical standards, but standards change so quickly that now ugly fat mutts are worshiped as gods and goddesses (e.g., Kim Kardashian, et al), we all live longer, and as a group we are becoming practically worthless, in terms of traits that would serve to further our existence as a species and protect it against unknown threats.

What are your thoughts on this?

I was in the grocery store parking lot and I drove by a car filled with older ladies; they were all wearing rainbow tie-dye clothing and had poodle haircuts. I was thinking about how they kind of looked like the human equivalent of those stupid little yapper dogs, and it was a kind of lightbulb moment for me. I started thinking about how those stupid little yapper dogs have become the predominate dog breeds in the United States, along with every other manner of weird-looking mutt; the kinds where, out of curiosity, you say to the owner, "what kind of dog is it?", and the owner replies, "oh it's just some kind of mutt." This theme has become so common place that such replies have become a figure of speech. Most people never really ever stop to think how strange this is. Imagine you were in a park and a birdwatcher was nearby; you see a pretty bird fly by and ask, "that's a really pretty bird, what kind is it?", and the birdwatcher replies, "oh that's just some kind of random mutt bird". Imagine this with regards to any other family of animal; this would be very strange. This is probably coming across like a race post of some kind, but it's primarily not. The thing that struck me about these ladies and most everyone else you see around town these days, and how their fitness and stature relates to my thoughts about dog breeds, is that the DNA of animals in nature tends to change very slowly, not because of any kind of in group preference, but because the very existence of each species is predicated on a never ending contest amongst the best and fittest of each kind there is little room in most animal families for mating preferences based on trivial social matters or temporary styles (of which, primates perhaps offer the closest analogs in nature). Dogs of the past for noble creatures, good for hunting large game or birds, or for defending individual humans or tribes from outside threats. They were big and beautiful animals, such as German Shepherds, Golden Retrievers, Hounds, 1800s original Doberman Pinschers, etc. Then life became easy in the west and people, in our excess, began to cross breed dogs to obtain traits that were practically worthless but socially important. The end result is this mishmash of worthless little yappers that serve no purpose other than to make their owners say "awww"; these breeds live twice as long and have huge litters. Dogs and humans seem to be the only families of animal that have been bred down from noble creatures into slovenly mutts. And the interesting part is that the way in which dogs have changed through this process mirrors the way humans in the west have changed; we've become shorter, and uglier by classical standards, but standards change so quickly that now ugly fat mutts are worshiped as gods and goddesses (e.g., Kim Kardashian, et al), we all live longer, and as a group we are becoming practically worthless, in terms of traits that would serve to further our existence as a species and protect it against unknown threats. What are your thoughts on this?

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

I drives me nuts two users took the time to write a comment for this post, but did not upvote it.

Why so stingy ?

To respond to your post - I don't see that around here. Most dogs here are relatively distinguishable breed wise. Also not many small dogs, too easily carried away by owls or killed by coyotes. This is why I live in the mountains and not in a city.

When I worked at a kennel, small dogs would be the most poorly treated when we were at full capacity. We called them shelf-dogs, because where most of the kennels had an outside run for each dog, the older kennels had shelves where those dogs would have to be picked up and let out instead of just opening the door to the outside run. It was a huge pain in the ass because you would have to leash the dog on the bottom, take it out of the kennel, grab the dog on the shelf and lock it outside to pee and poop.

I'd never have a shelf dog.

[–] 0 pt

I drives me nuts two users took the time to write a comment for this post, but did not upvote it.

maybe they wanted to engage in conversation but did not really agree with you? And hence did not want to upvote?

[–] 0 pt

Maybe. I just think that OP took some time to write that, and they took the time to respond, it deserves a vote.

[–] 0 pt

Thats fair... which is why I upvoted even though I disagreed on several points. But getting all butthurt and calling people out because they commented but did not upvote and award fake internet points is... well, extremely childish

Sorry mang, retro upgoat.

[–] 1 pt

Thanks. If you want your comment to be read and maybe replied to, you should upvote the post you commented on.