Conversation
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
Sally (evil)
sally@freesoftwareextremist.com
1
0
0
1
0
1
@yomiel @snacks
Getting drunk once is getting drunk more than needed and everyone that suffers from alcoholism started somewhere.
Alcohol is poison, it's addictive and extremely harmful, its consumption has been normalized for the sake of profits and control, people often drink because they're losers or can't cope in a healthy manner about their problems, so they drink more, turning into worse losers. Losers that are poor, so poor in fact that the big guys and government stole their health for money and control. When your health's been on the line, they will own you, it's a war, every time you indulge they win.
Getting drunk once is getting drunk more than needed and everyone that suffers from alcoholism started somewhere.
Alcohol is poison, it's addictive and extremely harmful, its consumption has been normalized for the sake of profits and control, people often drink because they're losers or can't cope in a healthy manner about their problems, so they drink more, turning into worse losers. Losers that are poor, so poor in fact that the big guys and government stole their health for money and control. When your health's been on the line, they will own you, it's a war, every time you indulge they win.
3
0
2
@sally @snacks
Alcohol has been consumed around the world for millenia, in almost every region and culture. Alcohol has also often been a social thing, hardly for 'losers', there's a big difference between getting drunk at home alone regularly vs getting drunk on rare occasion with friends and family.
Same with weed. If someone said they smoked weed regularly, often alone, I'd think they were loser goycattle. But if someone said that they smoked weed with their friends at college a couple times, I wouldn't really think anything of it.
Personally, I've never gotten drunk. I really do just drink for the flavour. And I do hate alcoholics, I can't stand people who have to drink all the time to get drunk, in the same way I can't stand potheads, cigerette smokers or vape users.
That being said, if someone told me they got drunk once or twice a year? I really wouldn't call that a problem. Saying it's a 'poison' is being pedantic. It is by technicality, but anything is dangerous when consumed dangerously. If a guy sat down and ate half a kilo of sugar, I'd also be concerned. But if someone said they have a couple sugars in their tea on a morning, or a can of coke with their lunch, I wouldn't bat an eye.
Alcohol has been consumed around the world for millenia, in almost every region and culture. Alcohol has also often been a social thing, hardly for 'losers', there's a big difference between getting drunk at home alone regularly vs getting drunk on rare occasion with friends and family.
Same with weed. If someone said they smoked weed regularly, often alone, I'd think they were loser goycattle. But if someone said that they smoked weed with their friends at college a couple times, I wouldn't really think anything of it.
Personally, I've never gotten drunk. I really do just drink for the flavour. And I do hate alcoholics, I can't stand people who have to drink all the time to get drunk, in the same way I can't stand potheads, cigerette smokers or vape users.
That being said, if someone told me they got drunk once or twice a year? I really wouldn't call that a problem. Saying it's a 'poison' is being pedantic. It is by technicality, but anything is dangerous when consumed dangerously. If a guy sat down and ate half a kilo of sugar, I'd also be concerned. But if someone said they have a couple sugars in their tea on a morning, or a can of coke with their lunch, I wouldn't bat an eye.
1
0
1
0
2
3
@yomiel @snacks
> Alcohol has been consumed around the world for millenia, in almost every region and culture. Alcohol has also often been a social thing, hardly for 'losers', there's a big difference between getting drunk at home alone regularly vs getting drunk on rare occasion with friends and family.
Historical context indeed matters and the current one is the one I care the most when I discuss why alcohol is poison and the powers-that-be use it to make people unhealthy and hopeless, many other activities from past cultures and times have been demonized, often for a good reason, alcohol is the exception because it prints tons of money.
It doesn't matter if you do it in groups or alone, though as time goes on and society keeps going on a downhill spiral into self-destructive individualism, engaging in harmful activities alone becomes more the normal and socially accepted trend, alcohol has strong potential to make people addicted to it and therefore strong potential for profits, alcoholic people has shit health and puts a strong reliance on others for livelihood, so the State also wants people to be alcoholic, among other things.
> That being said, if someone told me they got drunk once or twice a year? I really wouldn't call that a problem.
You miss the point I'm trying to make; getting drunk at all opens the gate to turn it into a problem for reasons that are objectively not worth the risk, a person that only drinks regularly still has far more chances of becoming an alcoholic than a person that never drinks and I insist that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE around you is trying hard to turn you into a useless alcoholic loser, my position is extremist, because the powers-that-be doing their best to make people addicted to shit is also extremist.
Also I work on a bar nigga, I've seen people going full loser-goycattle and dying, also once you get into it you'll need luck and a very strong willpower (which many lack) to quit.
> Alcohol has been consumed around the world for millenia, in almost every region and culture. Alcohol has also often been a social thing, hardly for 'losers', there's a big difference between getting drunk at home alone regularly vs getting drunk on rare occasion with friends and family.
Historical context indeed matters and the current one is the one I care the most when I discuss why alcohol is poison and the powers-that-be use it to make people unhealthy and hopeless, many other activities from past cultures and times have been demonized, often for a good reason, alcohol is the exception because it prints tons of money.
It doesn't matter if you do it in groups or alone, though as time goes on and society keeps going on a downhill spiral into self-destructive individualism, engaging in harmful activities alone becomes more the normal and socially accepted trend, alcohol has strong potential to make people addicted to it and therefore strong potential for profits, alcoholic people has shit health and puts a strong reliance on others for livelihood, so the State also wants people to be alcoholic, among other things.
> That being said, if someone told me they got drunk once or twice a year? I really wouldn't call that a problem.
You miss the point I'm trying to make; getting drunk at all opens the gate to turn it into a problem for reasons that are objectively not worth the risk, a person that only drinks regularly still has far more chances of becoming an alcoholic than a person that never drinks and I insist that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE around you is trying hard to turn you into a useless alcoholic loser, my position is extremist, because the powers-that-be doing their best to make people addicted to shit is also extremist.
Also I work on a bar nigga, I've seen people going full loser-goycattle and dying, also once you get into it you'll need luck and a very strong willpower (which many lack) to quit.
1
0
1
@sally @snacks
I'm not denying that there are many losers who drink alcohol, in the same way, as I said, that there are many fat people who overconsume food, potheads who smoke weed all the time, etc.
But the truth is it's extremely popular. Saying that the government/powers-at-be like alcohol because it's poisonous/harmful is stupid. The reason alcohol is allowed is because it's so damn popular. You can make arguments that the prohibition in America was partially so bad thanks to poor law enforcement, but no matter which way you slice it, it was not popular among the populous.
And I'm not committing popularity falacy, I'm not saying it's good BECAUSE it's popular, rather that a ban on it simply wouldn't fly. People would be pissed.
>...many other activities from past cultures and times have been demonized, often for a good reason, alcohol is the exception because it prints tons of money.
So did cigarettes. They're terrible for you, and once cigarette companies couldn't hide the negative effects anymore, huge public health campaigns occured to stop smoking, and the rates of smoking plummeted.
So what gives? It was a money printer, plus it was harmful to people, yet these campaigns were organized by governments all over the world.
Similarly, Alcohol drinking is on the decline in younger generations, just like smoking. It'll get to a point where the only time young people drink will be canned vodka fruit mixers that they drink on the rare time they go to a party or something. Most young people aren't getting on hard spirits or Guinness unless they're LARPing as masculine or something.
I mean, if you work in a bar, you tell me, do you see that many young people? I'll bet you see less of them than over-30's, and I bet that the drinks they order are probably different too.
Also, by comparison, alcohol is pretty safe to drink in comparison to how safe it is to smoke. I think that's my main point of contention here: it's really not that dangerous to drink in small quantities. I personally drink no more than 1 or 2 doubles of alcohol per night, and maybe only twice a week at best. And if someone gets drunk twice a year, so what?
Again, (>food analogy) it's like eating at a restaurant. It's certainly be unhealthy to consume a 2000 calorie meal for dinner daily, but if you do that only a couple times a year, it really is negligible. It's so infrequent that it doesn't matter.
I'm not denying that there are many losers who drink alcohol, in the same way, as I said, that there are many fat people who overconsume food, potheads who smoke weed all the time, etc.
But the truth is it's extremely popular. Saying that the government/powers-at-be like alcohol because it's poisonous/harmful is stupid. The reason alcohol is allowed is because it's so damn popular. You can make arguments that the prohibition in America was partially so bad thanks to poor law enforcement, but no matter which way you slice it, it was not popular among the populous.
And I'm not committing popularity falacy, I'm not saying it's good BECAUSE it's popular, rather that a ban on it simply wouldn't fly. People would be pissed.
>...many other activities from past cultures and times have been demonized, often for a good reason, alcohol is the exception because it prints tons of money.
So did cigarettes. They're terrible for you, and once cigarette companies couldn't hide the negative effects anymore, huge public health campaigns occured to stop smoking, and the rates of smoking plummeted.
So what gives? It was a money printer, plus it was harmful to people, yet these campaigns were organized by governments all over the world.
Similarly, Alcohol drinking is on the decline in younger generations, just like smoking. It'll get to a point where the only time young people drink will be canned vodka fruit mixers that they drink on the rare time they go to a party or something. Most young people aren't getting on hard spirits or Guinness unless they're LARPing as masculine or something.
I mean, if you work in a bar, you tell me, do you see that many young people? I'll bet you see less of them than over-30's, and I bet that the drinks they order are probably different too.
Also, by comparison, alcohol is pretty safe to drink in comparison to how safe it is to smoke. I think that's my main point of contention here: it's really not that dangerous to drink in small quantities. I personally drink no more than 1 or 2 doubles of alcohol per night, and maybe only twice a week at best. And if someone gets drunk twice a year, so what?
Again, (>food analogy) it's like eating at a restaurant. It's certainly be unhealthy to consume a 2000 calorie meal for dinner daily, but if you do that only a couple times a year, it really is negligible. It's so infrequent that it doesn't matter.
1
0
0
@yomiel @snacks
> So what gives? It was a money printer, plus it was harmful to people, yet these campaigns were organized by governments all over the world.
The government is doing public campaigns against tobacco for public relations, that's it. They know these campaigns are mostly pointless in practice as most people will smoke anyway, simply because bad companies corrupt character, they do absolutely nothing serious to stop it, they can and do have the means to restrict or outright outlaw poison distribution (not just limited to tobacco or liquor, but also added sugar as another example) but they'd rather allow it because all governments get huge tax income from tobacco and alcohol, and the people they own having shit health means they'll always rely on the status-quo in some way to keep existing, that's a bonus.
> Again, (>food analogy) it's like eating at a restaurant. It's certainly be unhealthy to consume a 2000 calorie meal for dinner daily, but if you do that only a couple times a year, it really is negligible. It's so infrequent that it doesn't matter.
The difference is that calories is something your body needs like water and oxygen, and any of these essential components in excess will cause health issues, again the powers-that-be do make it extremely easy to consume calories in excess because sugar is addictive, and making you unhealthy is their goal as much as it is printing money. Alcohol on the other hand is not needed, at all, it's purely detrimental to health.
> Similarly, Alcohol drinking is on the decline in younger generations, just like smoking. It'll get to a point where the only time young people drink will be canned vodka fruit mixers that they drink on the rare time they go to a party or something. Most young people aren't getting on hard spirits or Guinness unless they're LARPing as masculine or something.
Capitalism is using other methods to make younger generations addictive and enslaved to their profits; shit food, gambling, porn, tobacco and alcohol abuse are still found regularly on the youth, and I see plenty of young people eating literal goyslop every day. They're replacing liquors with something equally bad on the long-term.
> So what gives? It was a money printer, plus it was harmful to people, yet these campaigns were organized by governments all over the world.
The government is doing public campaigns against tobacco for public relations, that's it. They know these campaigns are mostly pointless in practice as most people will smoke anyway, simply because bad companies corrupt character, they do absolutely nothing serious to stop it, they can and do have the means to restrict or outright outlaw poison distribution (not just limited to tobacco or liquor, but also added sugar as another example) but they'd rather allow it because all governments get huge tax income from tobacco and alcohol, and the people they own having shit health means they'll always rely on the status-quo in some way to keep existing, that's a bonus.
> Again, (>food analogy) it's like eating at a restaurant. It's certainly be unhealthy to consume a 2000 calorie meal for dinner daily, but if you do that only a couple times a year, it really is negligible. It's so infrequent that it doesn't matter.
The difference is that calories is something your body needs like water and oxygen, and any of these essential components in excess will cause health issues, again the powers-that-be do make it extremely easy to consume calories in excess because sugar is addictive, and making you unhealthy is their goal as much as it is printing money. Alcohol on the other hand is not needed, at all, it's purely detrimental to health.
> Similarly, Alcohol drinking is on the decline in younger generations, just like smoking. It'll get to a point where the only time young people drink will be canned vodka fruit mixers that they drink on the rare time they go to a party or something. Most young people aren't getting on hard spirits or Guinness unless they're LARPing as masculine or something.
Capitalism is using other methods to make younger generations addictive and enslaved to their profits; shit food, gambling, porn, tobacco and alcohol abuse are still found regularly on the youth, and I see plenty of young people eating literal goyslop every day. They're replacing liquors with something equally bad on the long-term.
1
0
0
@sally @snacks
You're making a lot of baseless assessments of intent, it's not like you can actually say why the government doesn't do X or Y, you're ultimately just guessing.
The US government probably didn't just outright ban smoking because a lot of people still smoked. It would've been extremely unpopular if, in 1980, the US or any other major first world country banned smoking.
Not just unpopular, it'd be a massive undertaking. It's not as simple as just banning it from being sold, because you create a market for illegal cigarettes, which is already a decently sized market anyway. Weed is illegal in the UK, yet you can still smell it on every city street corner.
You're making a lot of baseless assessments of intent, it's not like you can actually say why the government doesn't do X or Y, you're ultimately just guessing.
The US government probably didn't just outright ban smoking because a lot of people still smoked. It would've been extremely unpopular if, in 1980, the US or any other major first world country banned smoking.
Not just unpopular, it'd be a massive undertaking. It's not as simple as just banning it from being sold, because you create a market for illegal cigarettes, which is already a decently sized market anyway. Weed is illegal in the UK, yet you can still smell it on every city street corner.
0
0
0