kingdom come

The whole fruit/vegetable controversy only comes because we're trying to use two different domains of terms interchangeably: botanical terms and culinary terms.
Tomatoes (and squash, and pumpkins (which, side note, are a type of squash), and cucumbers) are botanically fruits, but culinarily they're most commonly used as vegetables because they tend to be less sweet, particularly when raw. Mushrooms are botanically...well, I guess they're botanically "n/a", as they're not a part of the plantae kingdom, but whatever--they're typically considered botanical, so they're "botanically" fungi, but culinarily they're most commonly used as vegetables (or, interestingly, as meat replacements).
We get into the same linguistic confusion when we start throwing around "peanuts aren't nuts, they're legumes!"--botanically, yes, peanuts are legumes, but culinarily they're most commonly used as nuts. See also: "green beans" are botanically pods, not beans, but we use them culinarily as vegetables; and many "berries" are botanically something else but we use them culinarily as berries; meaning they're often left whole, mixed with other berries in the same dish, and go well with cream in cold summer desserts.
The whole thing is a misguided exercise in pedantry; "technically burritos aren't sandwiches, they're meat-sacks!" They're both, and we instinctively understand that trying to compare the two terms is silly because "sandwich" is a culinary term and "sack" is not.
Another funny part of this is that pedants are trying to say that tomatoes are (botanically) fruits and not vegetables, but the closest thing to a definition we have for "vegetable" botanically is "literally all plant life and maybe also some fungi," so tomatoes are clearly both fruit and vegetable botanically. Plus, they're culinarily used as vegetables, but can also be used as fruits in some cakes, pies, sorbets, and so forth (and isn't ketchup just a tomato smoothie?), so tomatoes are clearly both fruit and vegetable in culinary terms as well.
- good post, sounds like a copypasta
  
  Alas, it's all me. I...tend to be a bit verbose.
  
  Oh--and thanks! I think that's praise, at least.
- Great post, with one caveat
  the closest thing to a definition we have for "vegetable" botanically is "literally all plant life and maybe also some fungi,"
  I got my degree in Ecology and Evolution, and we always used a similar working definition but it was "edible parts of a plant which are not fruit." So basically botanically, stems, roots, leaves, flowers, and all subvarieties of those are vegetables. Fruits are fruits. Fungi are fungi.
- It is a bit weird that we use some fruits as "vegetables", like tomatoes and cucumbers. But, other fruits like mango or raspberry are so different from your typical "culinary vegetable" that you have to be very careful in how you use it in a savoury dish. There isn't the same crossover for other edible plants. For example, I can't think of any tuber that could sneak into a fruit salad unnoticed.
  I guess it comes down to there being a lot more variety among fruits than other edible plant parts. Plus, humans have been tweaking edible plants for millennia. So, who knows, maybe the original cucumber was more "fruity", but has been tuned over the years to be more "saladey".
  
  Definitely interesting. I wonder if there might also be a little bit to the fact that botanical fruits are basically just the best way to house seeds so that they'll have some energy to grow when planted, which means that it's independently evolved in a lot of different plants; so the culinary diversity of "fruits" is much greater.
- Tumblr is the neo-positivist/neo-berkeleyianism hivemind as a result from the inoculation by western STEM ideology. They love their AKSHUALLY WOW MINDBLOWN spiel.

The true misconception is that there are scientific definitions and culinary definitions. No the culinary definitions don't fit their scientific category. They're not intended to.

Strawberries, blackberries, mulberries, and raspberries are not berries.
Bananas, aubergine (eggplants), oranges and grapes are berries.
Dangleberries aren't real berries either.
- I have the last pane spoken with an old man voice living in my head rent free for some reason
  It's alarming the rate at which it just pops up
  
  It's almost as if excluding due to arbitrarily drawn lines is a bad idea. It helps nothing, it only serves to hurt ~~people~~ food.
- Pretty sure pumpkins are berries.

They’re (mushrooms) also constantly listed on American menus as a “protein” option despite a dire lack of the stuff
- Hmm, is it really that little? The stats look devastating, like e.g. 3 grams per 100 grams, but mushrooms also consist out of 90+ grams of water.
  For example, the button mushroom has:
  100 g total - 91.8 g water - 1.7 g fiber = 6.5g nutrients
  2.89 g protein / 6.5 g nutrients = 44.4% protein
  Comparing that to e.g. canned black beans:
  100 g total - 70.8 g water - 6.69 g fiber = 22.51 g nutrients
  6.91 g protein / 22.51 g nutrients = 30.9% protein

"Fruiting bodies," even

That's because Vegetable is not a Botanical Term. It is a culinary term. So, Tomatoes are both fruit and vegetable.
- This.
  All fruits are vegetables. Not all vegetables are fruit.
  The definition of a vegetable is just any edible part of a plant. While a fruit is specifically the seed-bearing ovary of a flowering plant.
  
  I don't think you can just use two classification systems in the same sentence. It should probably be illegal or something
  
  Is that like an official definition for vegetables from some government? Because I don't feel like there is a particularly good definition of vegetables. People mostly wouldn't refer to apples as vegetables, for example.

I don't think I've ever considered a mushroom a vegetable, they're just mushrooms

Fungi only got its own kingdom in 1969, before that they were a phylum in Plantae. There are tons of people still around who learned "mushrooms are plants" in school, so it's not surprising downstream vocabulary hasn't caught up.
- Idk that food vernacular is necessarily downstream of rigorous taxonomies at all lol.

Fruits vs vegetables is an arbitrary, near-meaningless distinction. See here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E8mcTIEVKUU
- No a fruit is a biologically defined thing right? On the vegetables I'm with you
  
  The video addresses this. The biological term "fruit" is not accurate for culinary use. Lots of things we eat are biologically fruit, but you'd get weird looks for calling it a "fruit" while eating it. The video gives a lot of examples of botanical-fruit-but-not-culinary-fruit, including cucumbers, peppers, corn, eggplant, peas, pumpkins, and broccoli (specifically the buds).

I kinda don't think they care

No controversy, there is only edible or not edible, no need to make life more complicated as it already is.
- I go by lickable and non-lickable.
  
  I’m lickable, can you lick me Greg?
  
  Can't lick cotton candy, it disappears

Sea weed isn't a plant either.

The controversy isn't about what they are, it's about what we call them and which categories we put them in on charts. It's like arguing over silly group names - is it a murder of tomatoes or a flock?