I really don’t understand this site’s/reddit’s fear of alcohol. Moderate drinking is not a problem. And it does assist with socializing, which seems like it would be beneficial for most people on here.

The idea that people here are afraid of/resistant to drinking, yet will use cannabis and other materials seems very strange. Just go to the bar and meet some people - it’s fun and it won’t hurt you. Alcoholism is obviously an issue, but alcoholism isn’t caused by moderate drinking. Just don’t be an idiot and you don’t have anything to worry about

There’s a loneliness epidemic and low alcohol consumption rates are a contributor to that

Getting drunk and then talking to a bunch of people you don’t know is how people meet people. That’s an essential and long running aspect of human socialization.

If you regularly talk to new people and make friends in other ways then that’s fine. But clearly the majority of Lemmy/Reddit users aren’t doing that. And young people in general aren’t doing it either. Meeting strangers irl and chatting them up is how you make friends and alcohol facilitates that

You can’t ban something unless it exists and is a part of your society. Alcohol existed prior to Islam in Arabia and still exists there today. Legal Prohibitions do not cause a substance to disappear.

Alcohol is just fermented grain. Everyone had grain. Therefore everyone had alcohol. Including the Americas

So yes, there is evidence of alcohol consumption in the New World prior to European contact. Indigenous peoples in various parts of the Americas developed fermented beverages from local ingredients long before Europeans arrived.

1. North America: Various tribes produced alcoholic drinks from berries, maize, and other native plants. For example, the Apache made tiswin from corn, and the Chicha was popular among many tribes in North America.

2. Central America: The Aztecs brewed pulque from the sap of the agave plant. This drink was not only consumed for enjoyment but also held religious significance.

3. South America: Chicha, a beer made from maize, was widely consumed across the Andean region. This beverage was integral to social and ceremonial functions.

These indigenous beverages varied widely in production, ingredients, and cultural significance but demonstrate that alcohol consumption was indeed present in the New World prior to European contact.

Me? I can’t understand why this is such a weird thing to you people.

And yet you made this post which does the same thing re: alcohol consumption

Wine pairings with meals are a thing for a reason. Milk pairings, not so much

• Criticizing alcohol consumption = you sleep

• Criticizing milk consumption = real shit

Also, let people dislike things. If Criticism diminishes your own enjoyment of a thing then you don’t actually like that thing

Unless it’s in baking or coffee/drinks or cereal it’s pretty fucking weird to drink it

Maybe acceptable with certain desserts tbh. But not with an actual meal

Who fucking drinks milk when they go to a restaurant

Autism is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be … unnatural

Alcohol has been an essential facilitating element of human socialization in every human civilization since Mesopotamia

Which is cool

The United States is a democracy only if oligarchies are democracies

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

“I turned 5 pounds of lead into gold this morning using this one weird trick that chemists HATE! Subscribe to my premium substack to learn more!”

It’s one thing to say that constellations of stars don’t exist. It’s another thing to say that the constellation “Leo” doesn’t exist because it isn’t a lion and our perception of the spatial relationship of those stars has nothing to do with lions, or with mystical astrological significance.

Those stars are present in space in a certain way. And we can perceive them in our sky in a certain way. But whether those stars are “connected” in any meaningful way, or whether they contain any inherent Lion relevance is purely a creation of human imagination derived from real observable objective phenomena. We could just as easily have said that Leo was Orion, and Orion was Leo, and have been equally correct. It’s subjective. Which doesn’t mean it’s meaningless for us, otherwise art would be meaningless. But it does mean that it isn’t “real” in the same way that gravity or the sun are real. Anything whose continued existence is conditioned on belief isn’t “real” in an objective sense.

Belief can certainly will unreal things into meaningful reality though. But, absent that belief, those things will not exist.

Really this is a discussion centered around the inadequacy of the English word “real.” Perhaps other languages have specific words that would more clearly demonstrate this distinction. Because clearly gravity and Pisces are not both “real” in the same way. The former is objectively real and the latter is subjectively real. And we’re talking past each other by not simply having seperate words that distinguish between those concepts

No it’s like saying a person-shaped cloud doesn’t exist.

To describe it as person-shaped is subjective and another viewer may describe the same cloud as butterfly-shaped. Because it’s a subjective interpretation of a static objective object. Like abstract art.

People/animals exist and are “real” in that all of us have agency and a sense of self that is not conditionally dependent on the identical perception of others.

A person-shaped cloud is only “person-shaped” if viewers claim it is. An arrangement of viewable disparate stars is only “Orion” because the Greeks, and now us, decided it was. But I am me and you are you regardless of what anyone else thinks, and always will be.

We aren’t a collection of particles, we are more than the sum of our parts. We have agency and a mind and self-identity. A cloud or a star constellation has none of those things. They are inanimate unfeeling objects that only gain meaning, (astrological, imaginative, or otherwise) when humans/sentient beings ascribe that meaning to them. Human beings, and all living things, have inherent meaning because of their sentience and inherent uniqueness. Which is why genocide is a greater loss than the destruction of a rock - it’s the permanent death of unique living beings.