I feel like this joke would have landed better 5, or maybe even 3 years ago. Every even remotely fancy restaurant I go into has jumped on the mocktail bandwagon and offers plenty of options for people avoiding alcohol.
You are paying for way more than the sum of the parts when you order a cocktail, I’m not really sure why you’d suddenly be concerned about doing so when it comes to a mocktail.
That’s great news! Occasionally I browse the NA beers and last week I thought how great it would be to be able to drink a Guinness! Maybe it arrives here sometime.
It really is. Like a lot of non alcoholic is crap (maybe if you’re a rare drinker it’s passable and unnoticeable). But Guinness 0.0 tastes very close to real Guinness. I’m not sure i could tell the difference in a blind test honestly.
Even then, it’s not really accurate anyway. A cocktail is a bunch of ingredients mixes together. You can usually get them without the alcohol if you ask for it (obviously this doesn’t work for every drink). They list of cocktails is so large because there’s a lot of ways to combine a few ingredients to make different things. They don’t actually stock that many types of drinks or anything. They’re made on demends, and can usually be modified if you ask.
If you can remove the alcohol from any “cocktail” and still have more than just flavored ice or a dirty glass, you were drinking slightly alcoholic mocktails the whole time.
Old Fashioned mocktail is a cherry on top of a large ice cube that you’ve used to bludgeon some sugar and an orange.
A Sazerac mocktail is akin to an empty glass someone just drink a sweet lemony drink from. You don’t get the lemony drink, just the dirty glass.
A margarita mocktail is salty lime flavored ice. This is basically a daquiri mocktail too, adding a strawberry seems popular.
A Manhattan mocktail is a sweetened cherry in an otherwise empty glass.
A mojito mocktail is a bit more substantial, minty sugar water with a hint of lime.
A mint julep mocktail, again just minty sugar water.
A white Russian mocktail is just a glass of cream over ice.
A mimosa mocktail is just a nearly empty glass of orange juice.
The non-alcoholic parts of a cocktail are rarely more than a quarter of the volume if they’re made properly. Most cocktails are a half oz of sugar water and a citrus flavor. The other 2/3 of the volume (not counting the ice) is alcohol. Just order a soda, soda water (with or without a garnish), tea, or my favorite a Topo Chico and lime.
First of all, a vodka martini isn’t a classic martini. That’s why you have to say “vodka” before martini if that’s what you’re ordering. A martini is made at any reputable establishment with gin. I’m sure you could say “rum martini” and any established bartender would raise an eyebrow but make your order.
That said, I order my martini the same way every time: pure Everclear stirred with a single ice cube. Wave a bottle of vermouth over the glass while looking in the direction of France.
One olive or three, never even numbers. I’m not a savage.
Then after I’ve vomited on the bar, they wheel me home on a dolly.
Edit: my actual standard order is Beefeater, extra dry, one olive. Keep it simple and classic.
Human sacrifice was also pretty popular for a pretty long time, as was autocracy. Alcohol isn’t that bad, obviously, if bad at all, but age isn’t a good argument on it’s own.
Also; factually inaccurate. I’m not sure how much evidence of alcohol there is in the New World civilisations, and Islam, which forbids it, has been around for a millennia and a half.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough. It looks like pulque, at least, was recorded as not being used recreationally, which is probably what I was remembering, but even that I doubt, just based on human nature.
It’s still highly unlikely Alpharabius ever discussed political philosophy over a beer. There might have been local Jews that could supply it, but the cultural taboo would have long since been totally integrated. It wasn’t ye olde prohibition or something. And it’s still not supported that drinking is objectively, universally desirable in some aesthetic sense, which is kind of what “it is cool” suggests in the original context.
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
There’s a loneliness epidemic and low alcohol consumption rates are a contributor to that
Are they? Sincere question, haven’t read a report or something like that on that topic.
Regarding the remaining part, I understand how you see that. Seems logical. However, I would claim that this is more of a problem in societies mindset itself and less one tied to alcohol consumption. If people are raised in a way that they learn how alcohol is necessary, and don’t learn other ways, if it’s even incorporated in the particular culture of a society, then it’s not surprising that those people have a hard time finding new friends.
There are plenty of counter examples, e.g., look at other cultures where alcohol is even forbidden or at least its consumption clearly discouraged. Even in western cultures there are plenty of people who found and prefer other ways. But sure, may of course not be the majority yet.
Regarding a loneliless epidemic, I guess there is also a lot more to it than alcohol consumption alone. For example I have picked up on smartphone usage / social media consumption as related on that. (Which is a very superficial statement now, I haven’t read up on that.)
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
Which is a cultural thing. If people grow up seeing how alcohol is a social catalysator, they don’t learn that it’s perfectly possible to socialize without alcohol.
which seems like it would be beneficial for most people on here.
Idk, if that comes from a well-meant place, but it sounds kinda condescending.
The idea that people here are afraid of/resistant to drinking, yet will use cannabis and other materials seems very strange.
There are not just two kinds of people. From my experience those, who use cannabis or other drugs, are inclined towards alcohol use as well.
I tried it recently, but eventually gave up. It had so many little and not-so-little issues on my laptop, which I solved one by one over 2 weeks, reading and learning a lot. Even recompiled the kernel with a custom patch to get energy management to work.
Then I did a speed test on Wi-Fi, and it capped out at 6MBit (I have a Gigabit connection). The solution apparently is to install a Wi-Fi network adapter inside a Linux VM and connect to that on boot.
That’s when I went back to Debian where everything just works out of the box on my PC.
Yeah, I’ve had the same issues with BSD distros over the decades, always giving those devs the benefit of the doubt that they would get around to fixing various driver bullshit for older hardware eventually, and they never do.
Meanwhile a bleeding edge distro like my Arch setup runs on a piece of shit Celeron two-threaded dual-core with 3Gb RAM old as fuck Chromebook just fine.
That reminds me of the oldschool Realtek WiFi cards which required you to run drivers through WINE just to have WiFi on Linux. It really is excellent to see how far it’s come. I have a cheap Chinese laptop with a celeron chip (jasper lake) that I use as essentially a thin client. Installing windows fresh: trackpad doesn’t work, audio doesn’t work, WiFi 6 card driver is a generic MS one that caps at 5mb a sec until I install the right Realtek drivers, graphics aren’t accelerated until I install intel’s drivers. Installing Linux: everything works out of the box, just need to install the right graphics drivers for accelerated graphics to work. Only sad spot is the fingerprint reader is just flat out not supported in Linux. Lol if I tried hard I guess I could hook up WINE to run it like the old days
Nah, I’d rather they keep speaking like this. Makes it really obvious from the get go who I’m dealing with. If they speak normally, they might blend in
Naw it’s more like “we did something we knew would make you incredibly uncomfortable; but now that you’re screaming we’re worried about the neighbors hearing it and we don’t want the cops called on us, so we’ll back off until a more opportune time.”
And I’m not really exaggerating, to get from SLC to Denver would take 15 hours (and departs at 3:30AM; no other options), vs ~8 hours in a car. Oh, if you want a sleeper car with a bunkbed, that’ll be 2x the cost of a hotel room.
So yeah, it’s an option, just a really crappy one.
Are any of these stats actual stats or part of a study or anything other than a watermarked, compressed meme format that someone can cite? Almost election time and getting stats and facts straight rn is pretty important
Your last sentence seems to add that during elections it is more important to be factual. I think my point is we should be holding those news networks that cannot do that even without elections accountable and not consuming their product.
I’m fairly confident in saying all people want truth all the time.
I wasn’t addressing that at all - I’m saying it’s even more important to be double checking and fact checking during election season because that’s when we’ve seen foreign adversaries try and push fake news and other bs to muddy waters, fool and bend some populace, trick and misinform others as a sort of “backdoor” for future wins, etc.
Not because truth is more valuable during election season, but because lies are more common.
It’s not about when to want things, it’s about when to look out for things. Yes, you should always be aware of tornadoes, but you should pay extra attention during tornado season.
The EPI seems to have credible sources in that article and seems to cite them appropriately. The larceny et al. crime stats seem to come from an FBI data set from 2012. The EPI article itself is from 2014, so that eases one potential concern of cherry picking old data compared to current inflation numbers. But it’s also worth noting that ten year-old data isn’t great. That said, is it hard to believe that not much has changed in ten years? The figures seem reasonably trustworthy given this brief (BRIEF) assessment.
There’s no way that the stats here are legit stats because they’d account for the most glaring issue: you’re comparing groups of people that follow the laws of economics and individuals who commit a crime.
It’s like comparing an apple to the root system of an orange tree
Like sure we can compare them, but what’s the fucking point when one is so much different…
Stealing “wages” also shouldn’t be treated the same as stealing everything out of someone’s pocket - are we talking a dollar per day? Are we talking about reports of robbery (common for insurance fraud so there’s noise in that data) or confirmed and sentenced theft? Etc etc
I didn’t say that, I said we shouldn’t be treating them 1:1 - I want to know the truth of exactly how the “crime” happened so I can fairly assess and not be making judgments and decisions based off bad science/bad statistics…
you’re comparing groups of people that follow the laws of economics and individuals who commit a crime.
Are you trying to suggest that wage theft isn’t a crime? I think your biggest mistake here is believing that stealing from an individual employee is somehow not as bad as other kinds of theft, you’re like a reverse Robin Hood.
Not at all! Obviously, everyone deserves to be paid a fair wage…
Why would I be asking for actual truth and science if I didn’t care about people getting paid fairly? That wouldn’t make sense
I was just saying that wage theft and actual physical thefts are different and have some specific concerns that I’d want to see weighed in the stats as an example
The point you’re missing is we’re not talking about some Marxian extraction of surplus value that for all intents and purposes is legal wage theft. We’re talking about actual illegal wage theft where employers are not paying out the money they’re legally obligated to pay out. For example paying below minimum wage or not paying for overtime work etc. That is functionally no different to someone robbing you on the street. In both cases something of value, that you legally own (or in case of wage theft are obligated to receive), is taken from you.
The employers are not following some laws of economics, they’re just straight up committing a crime.
The point you’re missing is that you have completely misunderstood me.
I wasn’t saying that wage theft isn’t a criminal act.
I was asking for legitimate source/vetting to remove noise and any other dangerous mis-judgments that happen commonly from amateur stats work. It’s very easy to make an incorrect statement based off of bad or poorly portrayed stats. Was not at all saying that they aren’t a crime, just that all the facts need to be on the table about the data so we can make true and informed judgments from it.
Hoping this clears things up, I’m not sure how much clearer I can get haha
Edit: removed a small chunk - thought you were the person I was talking to originally.
I’ve misunderstood you? Well what did you actually say?
you’re comparing groups of people that follow the laws of economics and individuals who commit a crime.
One group follows the laws of economics (as in not a crime) and the other group commits crimes? Or did you mean this part
I was just saying that wage theft and actual physical thefts are different
Which you haven’t explained how they’re different, except for the part where you’re saying one isn’t a crime and the other is.
Was not at all saying that they aren’t a crime, just that all the facts need to be on the table about the data so we can make true and informed judgments from it.
But the facts were on the table? This guy gave the numbers before the comment you replied to even existed and then there was also this guy who found the source on reddit, also before your comment. Now you could argue federation delay and you didn’t see them the first time, but if you really cared about finding the data you could’ve found the data. But I don’t think you really care that much the data because you also started your first comment with:
There’s no way that the stats here are legit stats…
Seems to me like you made up your mind before you even questioned whether they’re factual or not.
I haven’t gotten the time to look through the number yet, it’s on my list. Responding to these is pretty quick. But you’ve made up your mind about me already I guess…
I was implying in the example listed that we should be fully aware of the differences of the two items portrayed, which a good solid source usually does and was my justification for having asked for one first. Hope this clears things up.
I literally quoted the part where you said that wage theft was “groups of people that follow the laws of economics” and other types of theft being compared was “individuals who commit a crime”. The only reasonable interpretation is that you believe wage theft isn’t a crime; you are, at best, downplaying wage theft as an issue. If there’s a misunderstanding it stems entirely from you saying exactly the thing you’re being accused of saying.
You also said, and once again I’ll quote you directly:
Stealing “wages” also shouldn’t be treated the same as stealing everything out of someone’s pocket - are we talking a dollar per day?
But why not? In what way is someone stealing $100 from your wallet worse than your employer stealing $100 from your paycheck? I’d argue wage theft is in fact worse; that’s someone with power stealing from those they have power over. That is not a good thing.
I’d also like to point out that so far nobody has criticised you for asking for sources, that’s just deflection. You’re being criticised for the views you personally expressed in this thread.
So your argument is that stealing $10 ten times can’t be compared to stealing $100 once? That’s obviously nonsense.
You’ve still not addressed the fact you said wage theft is “groups [following] the laws of economics” but other theft is “individuals who commit a crime”. This is what you were being criticised for. Just so we’re absolutely clear: you separated theft into two distinct categories, one “following the laws of economics” (ie wage theft) and another “individuals who commit a crime” (ie other theft). This would mean wage theft is not committing a crime. You even literally put “crime” in scare quotes when referring to wage theft. This is what you are being criticised for. Nothing else. Not anything that you later brought up and nobody else commented on. Just that one view that you said, by yourself, unrelated to the data presented or the source of that data.
You downplayed wage theft as a crime.
Nobody’s talking about you asking for sources or commenting on specific aspects of the data because it’s not what people are pissed about. This is like if you draw a cock and balls on the Mona Lisa but when people yell at you you just refuse to acknowledge it and keep talking about your time in art school. Nobody cares about art school, it’s all about the cock and balls.
Not at all what I was saying, once again. I’m saying that, that fact needs to be explicitly stated, just like you did. But it isn’t here. That’s one problem.
Wage theft isn’t cut and dry and it isn’t specific at all. Here’s a definition: Wage theft occurs when employers do not pay workers according to the law. Examples of wage theft include paying less than minimum wage, not paying workers overtime, not allowing workers to take meal and rest breaks, requiring off the clock work, or taking workers’ tips.
Of the data related to wage theft and theft, I wanted a break down of what those very large definitions meant specifically here, so that we can be sure to account for everything on the table, and not round over stats into higher-level, more generalized categories.
There’s more trucks than cars on the road because businesses employee people for most of the day, most people have jobs, and there’s a high enough amount of jobs requiring driving trucks on the roads.
^ this is the logic train I’d like to follow for these stats. Not just “this wide category had wide results”
Which I will do when I have time to actually sit down and look at the stats/source.
I mean, kinda, yeah. But people masturbate. They’re not hurting anyone doing it. The idea that anyone had masturbated thinking of me would be a self esteem booster. That said, that’s a pipe dream. Ain’t nobody ever got off to all of this outside of an actual sexual encounter. Lmao
I had someone say they wanted me (as part of a conversation about preferences, not totally off topic) and it was honestly really flattering. I told em I was ace and we moved on. It was like seven years ago but I’ll cherish that memory forever…
Omg, what a true answer, it happened to me too. And more than once, if I were gay I wouldn’t even have to worry, I’ve always been very liked by gays, I don’t know why, but it’s true.
My understanding is most shorthand/euphemisms nowadays seem to originate from tiktok’s strict and sometimes inscrutable censorship rules. Maybe this is one of them?
Edit: apparently this was a case of text-to-speech gone away. I prefer my head cannon of tiktok trying to censor conversations about anyone who “pays for” an elicit service.
lemmy.world
Top