Johnathan

@Hanson That is entirely your call! I'm just sharing what the industry looks like to raise awareness.

@The X-Phile A few things to unpack here. First, I'd gently push back on the censorship framing again, expressing a reaction to a crossword clue in a comment section is about as far from censorship as it gets. Nobody lost their job, no content was removed, no authority was invoked. I just said I found it uncomfortable. That's called making a comment, not cancellation. On the political aside, I'll leave that one where it landed. You may have a point about making enemies versus converts, but that depends on the people reading this comment thread, not me. There's value in having these discussions and naming these things, regardless of whether it immediately wins people over. Not every comment is a recruitment drive, and that's not why I made my original comment. And I'll be honest, I'm not familiar with Sheep Detectives, but the summary you've given makes it sound worth watching! Google even says it has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, impressive! So thank you for that, genuinely. As for the vegan soapbox, guilty as charged, and I make no apologies for it. But being vegan doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion about what appears in a crossword puzzle, any more than being a meat eater disqualifies you. I said I found two consecutive clues referencing animal suffering uncomfortable and explained why. The label doesn't change the argument. Blessings to you.

@Andrzej I asked a fair question that I wanted an honest answer to. The whole point of hypothetical questions is to determine what your morals are, and how consistent they are. This specific question is trying to get you to put yourself in the perspective of the victim. How would you like it if someone wanted to make you into a cheeseburger?

@Steve L Fair point on the terminology, the correct term is bull calf. My point remains: male calves are byproducts of the dairy industry, since they can’t produce milk and aren’t the preferred breed for beef, so they’re often sold for veal or slaughtered shortly after birth. That being said, I am not so interested in what they are called. I care for defending the cruelty that happens to them.

@Jerry Blessings 🫶

@Andrzej Hello, I would love for you can show me where I was being condescending in my comment. It is very common for people to attack the so called "condescending tone" of vegans, so this definitely does not come as a surprise to me. Historically, most social justices movements have been criticized and derided. I wonder, would you consider an abolitionist condescending? Or would you say someone fighting for women's equality is condescending? I care about the rights of animals, and if I have offended you with any condescending tone, I apologize. Given you have pangs of guilt and do vegan cooking yourself, you clearly have a strong moral compass. You also say that pigs are smart and playful - yet delicious. According to your logic, if any being is delicious, it is acceptable to eat them, this includes kittens and puppies. I wonder, if another species came along and decided to farm humans, would you find it acceptable to see your loved ones slaughtered because their flesh is "delicious"?

@SP I am sorry that my comment got you steamed. My intention was to share the reality of what bullfighting and veal looks like. Given what I know about those industries, I'm allowed to have the reaction that I did. I shared my feelings and some facts about the industries involved. I wouldn't want to see clues referencing the killing or harming of a human being, so I'm simply extending that same sentiment to our animal friends. This is consistency, not censorship.

@Calig As someone else pointed out, fair point on the terminology, bull calf is the correct term. But the substance of the point stands regardless of what we call them. On pigs and octopi, you're absolutely right, and that's a conversation worth having too. You're also right about almond milk. Thankfully I think the taste of almond milk is horrible. Soy milk tastes better and has a much better footprint when it comes to water usage. However, if water usage is your concern, dairy milk still requires significantly more water, land, and emissions than any plant based alternative.

@Charles Peterson Censorship is when someone in power suppresses speech. Me expressing a preference in a comment section is the opposite of that, it's free expression. The NYT crossword already has standards about what is and isn't acceptable. I'm not asking to be handed control of those standards, I'm expressing an opinion about where I think the line could reasonably sit. Agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion is completely fine. But calling it censorship fundamentally misrepresents what I said and what censorship actually means. And yes, words referencing the killing of human beings are also "just words", technically. However, I'd wager most constructors and editors would think twice before cluing something referencing cruelty toward a human being purely out of taste and sensitivity. That's not censorship either.

@Johnathan This is like an episode of “surrounded” on jubilee 🤣. I am enjoying the conversations thus far though, and I will be happy to engage thoughtfully with you all. Blessings to everyone on this fine day 🫶.

@Mean Old Lady I appreciate you sharing that, and those are genuinely interesting philosophical questions. I'd push back a little though. You say we're no different from other life forms, but I'd argue the opposite point actually strengthens my case. Most animals kill for survival and necessity. We have the awareness, the resources, and the alternatives to make different choices, and arguably that awareness comes with some responsibility. As for dissection, I think there's a reasonable distinction between using animals for genuine scientific education and understanding, and using them for entertainment like bullfighting, or producing a luxury food item like veal in the way that industry operates, which was the point of my original comment. And the detail about the fetal pig having hairs on her chin. I think that instinct you had to notice her, to describe her as "she", to remember that detail years later, actually says something great about you, which is you recognizing her individuality. We do recognize something in animals. Most of us just find it easier not to think about it too hard when it's on our plate or in a crossword clue. I'm not here to make anyone feel guilty. I just think the fact that something is common or has always been done isn't by itself a reason to keep doing it without question.

@Don H I sense some thinly veiled hostility with your first sentence, but I'll set that aside and engage with the puzzle point, which is actually a fair one worth discussing. I actually don't play Spelling Bee personally, but I will still try my best to answer your question in good faith. Since I don't play Spelling Bee, I had to research what may constitute a valid answer. I found that highly graphic, violent, or vulgar words will be rejected. Apparently if you try to spell a word like "murder" or "assault", the game will simply return a "not in word list" message. To elaborate further on your point, Spelling Bee is a game where my personal score is the only thing at stake, so if I choose not to enter a word, the only person affected is me. That seems like a perfectly reasonable place to exercise personal discretion. So perhaps I would happily sacrifice points for it. That's my choice to make. A crossword is different, a constructor and editor are making choices on behalf of everyone who solves it. I'm not suggesting they should adopt my personal ethics wholesale. I'm saying that editors already make taste-based judgments constantly, and I'm allowed to have a reaction when I feel those judgments land somewhere uncomfortable for me. personal discretion about words is something we all exercise all the time. I'm just being transparent about mine. Blessings to you as always.

@Wyra You're right that crosswords reference wars, murders, and murderers, but the distinction worth making is that most of those references are historical, biographical, or factual in a way that serves a clear educational or cultural purpose. GETTYSBURG, NAPOLEON, even ARSENIC have context beyond the act of killing itself. Bullfighting and veal are different in that the killing isn't incidental to the answer, it essentially is the answer. The thing being referenced exists primarily as a practice of killing or confinement for consumption. But more broadly, the fact that we've always included certain things in crosswords isn't really an argument for continuing to do so without question. Editorial standards evolve. The NYT crossword has retired other terms over the years as sensibilities changed. I'm not demanding anything. I'm just suggesting that some of us notice these things and have reactions to them, and that's allowed.

@Alexandra Dixon agreed, fox hunting is terribly cruel and unethical. Sadly it is one of the many ways humans exploit innocent animals. A better outing for foxhounds should be walks or playing fetch.

@Katie In your opinion, since you don’t believe in privileging animal life above that of plants and fungi, if there is a burning building, should a fire fighter save a plant or an animal from said burning building? Also, eating animal products is not required for survival or optimal health. I have been vegan for one year now and I recently had aPR on my incline, bench press, dumbbell, shoulder, press, and dumbbell bench press at 95 pounds for eight reps. My overhead shoulder press is 75 pounds for eight reps no starving here, just gains.

@Andrzej I asked a question which you did not answer, so right now it seems like you are discussing as a politician would.

@Katie If living in a way that aligns with my ethics is signaling, then I think it's a good signal to send.

@Charles Peterson I expressed a personal reaction to consecutive puzzles referencing industries I find troubling. That having an opinion, which comment sections tend to invite. And "stuff that exists is fair game" is an interesting standard. Lots of things exist. Editors and constructors make choices every single day about what makes it into the puzzle and what doesn't, it is literally their job. The NYT crossword has historically avoided racial slurs, crude terms, and other content deemed inappropriate, so the line clearly already exists somewhere. I'm simply saying where mine is. Nobody is filing a lawsuit or lobbying the NYT. I left a comment. That's the same thing you're doing right now.

@Steve L If you really care about not forcing choices on others, then paying for animal products is a direct contradiction to that belief. Also, we don’t need to eat animals to survive or be healthy, we can thrive off of a diet that doesn’t include animals.

@Hanson Slaughtering an animal does not constitute responsible care.

@Barry Ancona Context matters. A chop can refer to a tennis hit. I would prefer something that doesn’t include victimizing an innocent animal.