this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
68 points (95.9% liked)
Casual Conversation
2123 readers
248 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I like to think of it like this: there's nothing wrong with alcohol itself, it's just a drug. It's what you use it for (escapism?) that fucks you up.
Oh, there are definitely some things wrong with alcohol itself, as for basically any psychotropic substance. I can't think of one with absolutely zero downsides.
I don't want to say you should abstain from all substance, in fact I don't either, though I don't drink anymore. But current academic consensus is that alcohol is rather harmful compared to other substance (and, in fairness, less harmful than others) and not only is it problematic itself, but also our approach towards it as a society.
Saying there's nothing wrong with it shifts blame to the affected individual. Meanwhile, companies are raking in billions from sales and not being held accountable for the damage they cause.
Even water can have harmful side effects - you can drown, or get bloated, or dilute your body's store of catalysts, you can over-work your kidneys, etc. Granted, water has fewer side effects than most things you could put into your body:-).
Alcohol can be used well though - e.g. half a serving not even every day has been shown to have fantastic benefits, especially when it is red wine and the recipient is male (though it is unclear whether that is any better than just red grapes, although even if not, the latter can get quite expensive). e.g. it can help to alleviate stress, and lowers blood pressure (ofc it can also raise stress if used improperly, e.g. if you combine drinking with driving).
You are correct ofc in the pedantic sense that caution is warranted, as with any drug - I am not saying otherwise, and I would have communicated more properly with less room for misunderstanding if I had said not that there is "nothing wrong with alcohol" but rather more that "the issue has less to do with the alcohol", compared to the escapism. e.g. OP said things like this:
Which in addition to alcohol people could achieve this state by over reliance on games, work, religion, family or other things if likewise improperly applied. Ian Danskin (Innuendo Studios) has a fascinating albeit quite long video explanation relevant to this topic showing a variety of ways someone can fuck up their own life + that of everyone else around them. e.g. Brexit did not involve alcohol, nor did electing Donald Trump, nor does climate change or capitalism need alcohol to kill us all and perhaps end humanity's tenure on planet Earth. But "escapism" did in fact do all of those things (being a necessary component when if not fully sufficient all on its own to be the sole cause), and thus is a far worse culprit to be aware of than a mere few ounces of some drug.
TLDR: don't lose sight of the forest for the sake of the trees: alcohol is nowhere close to the primary danger in this discussion. Though yes, as with any drug, caution is advised, good point.
Water however is something the body absolutely requires and if it's fit for consumption (e.g. clean, not distilled, etc) has no downsides when consumed in the required amount. There's no metric that gets better without drinking water compared to with. Also, the possibility of drowning in isn't limited to water, but rather a property of all(?) liquids.
I'm not aware of any such studies living up to current scientific standards, which is why the WHO now states that there's no safe level for consumption. https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health note that this is mostly about cancer only, not the other detrimental effects:
For studies showing a positive effect, it has recently been claimed that there are issues with how the control group, consisting of people who don't drink, is selected, which this quote on the article hints at:
Because often, the group of non-drinkers contains ex-drinkers who stopped drinking because of the negative health impact from drinking. So you're comparing a moderate to light drinker (selective from the first group) to the average of the second group, which is problematic because of the previously mentioned fact.
Escapism is part of the human nature, and so is the desire to do drugs, the latter not even exclusive to humans. Both are fine in moderation.
Again, idc about it very much, but shifting away all responsibility from the substance and by extension, the profiteers, towards the sometimes uneducated users is just wrong, and creates a stigma for those who are affected by a dependence on alcohol and its effects detrimental to health. A substance that can have these effects just be at least partially to blame.