Do you ever drink "strategically"?
-
I downvoted you because I think you're judging just a little. Not everyone is an addict.
I downvoted you because i think you're projecting your judgmental mindset onto others.
-
Just bought box wine the other day cuz I knew I had to have a super uncomfortable conversation that could not be avoided and I needed to be anaesthetized for it
It worked and I know in retrospect I really needed it to be that way
Edit/Update: person I had convo with just texted me and apologized for combativeness and I mutually apologized for not dealing with it sooner and we're along and on to solution mode. The system works, please dont drink if you dont have too but dont forbid yourself from using a tool to improve your situation and try to always be honest. The less you lie or hide, the less influence you will have to unnecessarily drink
I strategically refrain from alcohol or other drug consumption. And my life has improved drastically ever since.
Whatever the reason that you feel you have to abuse drugs as a coping mechanism, it will only make things worse. You will not be able to process your emotions, you will not be able to think clear about what is your best way forward and you will not be able to grow stronger while drugged up.
The fact that you say you "needed to be anesthetized" for an uncomfortable conversation screams that you are either already having a drug abuse problem and that you have issues with your emotional regulation.
-
Just bought box wine the other day cuz I knew I had to have a super uncomfortable conversation that could not be avoided and I needed to be anaesthetized for it
It worked and I know in retrospect I really needed it to be that way
Edit/Update: person I had convo with just texted me and apologized for combativeness and I mutually apologized for not dealing with it sooner and we're along and on to solution mode. The system works, please dont drink if you dont have too but dont forbid yourself from using a tool to improve your situation and try to always be honest. The less you lie or hide, the less influence you will have to unnecessarily drink
I know everyone in here’s saying no but I do. If I’m going to a social occasion I might have a drink beforehand; not much, just enough to feel it. I’m not the most comfortable in social situations and a beer can just take the edge off. I don’t get drunk or anything and I’d only do it if there’s going to be alcohol there anyway.
I also drink sometimes to help me sleep. I have ADHD and I struggle to switch my brain off. Sometimes I hit like 2am and if I think I need it I have a bottle of whisky downstairs that I’ll go and have a drink off. Again, just enough to feel it. I have pills and medicine that help me sleep, and they work also, but they leave me feeling groggy the next day. With a little whisky I don’t even feel it the next day and it seems to work just as well. I don’t do it too often, maybe once every 3 or 4 weeks.
-
I'll be honest, a quick review of this thread did not clearly reveal who was downvoting who for what. My position, and this other person's, is that downvoting opinions is bad manners and toxic to healthy discussion. If there was genuinely harmful advice there, then OK, downvote away.
(Obviously these days the word "harmful" is thrown around liberally so this probably just puts us back to square one.)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It seems you might not understand what downvotes are for then. Downvotes are for things that do not contribute to discussion so things like insults or actively dangerous suggestions should be downvoted.
Suggesting what is a very typical path to addiction for addicts is very bad advice and should not be shared. When someone is foolish enough to do so it should be downvoted because the whole discussion is toxic
-
Freedom of speech as an absolute
Of course it's not absolute, where did I say otherwise? Straw man.
paradox of tolerance
This just feels like a fancy reference deployed to back up intolerance.
They never made a straw man argument because they qualify it with the second part that you cut off. Why did you do that?
-
I strategically refrain from alcohol or other drug consumption. And my life has improved drastically ever since.
Whatever the reason that you feel you have to abuse drugs as a coping mechanism, it will only make things worse. You will not be able to process your emotions, you will not be able to think clear about what is your best way forward and you will not be able to grow stronger while drugged up.
The fact that you say you "needed to be anesthetized" for an uncomfortable conversation screams that you are either already having a drug abuse problem and that you have issues with your emotional regulation.
I am glad this is working for you, but not everyone has the same caustic relationship with recreational drugs that you do. Alcohol has been around since over 5000 years BC, but somehow you and a great deal of others have gone on this mini "prohibition" movement and have it all figured out. Good for you, but let's not let this turn into a new movement where "I know better than you" becomes an excuse to tell others how to live their lives. Prohibition in the US started just like this.
-
Given the fact that they said they need the equivalent of FOUR bottles of wine to have an uncomfortable conversation, it's a red flag.
You're right, many people can consume things in moderation, but when you see warning signs like that, warning them isn't a form of pearl clutching so much as "dude, be careful."
I think most people wouldn't be able to have ANY conversation after four whole bottles of wine. I certainly wouldn't.
-
Just bought box wine the other day cuz I knew I had to have a super uncomfortable conversation that could not be avoided and I needed to be anaesthetized for it
It worked and I know in retrospect I really needed it to be that way
Edit/Update: person I had convo with just texted me and apologized for combativeness and I mutually apologized for not dealing with it sooner and we're along and on to solution mode. The system works, please dont drink if you dont have too but dont forbid yourself from using a tool to improve your situation and try to always be honest. The less you lie or hide, the less influence you will have to unnecessarily drink
Everyone high roading you here is probably on anti-anxiety meds lol
-
Would you care to clarify?
You don't become an alcoholic for a single episode. I get US and EU are very different when it comes to alcohol consumption, but if OP would see alcohol as the only way to manage all of his problems, ok, it's dangerous, but if he reckon this is a one of a kind solution, it's just a bad choice
-
You don't become an alcoholic for a single episode. I get US and EU are very different when it comes to alcohol consumption, but if OP would see alcohol as the only way to manage all of his problems, ok, it's dangerous, but if he reckon this is a one of a kind solution, it's just a bad choice
If you've read my comment history with OP, I was voicing my concerns because that was part of how it started for me. Thankfully I'm on the other side of alcoholism now. I just know that if someone is asking a question showing concern for their drinking, I will speak up and voice concern.
I'm not attempting to take away any agency, I just wish someone had actually said something to me rather than downplaying my concerns. I may have not fallen down the rabbit hole, because I still had a handle on it then.
-
It seems you might not understand what downvotes are for then. Downvotes are for things that do not contribute to discussion so things like insults or actively dangerous suggestions should be downvoted.
Suggesting what is a very typical path to addiction for addicts is very bad advice and should not be shared. When someone is foolish enough to do so it should be downvoted because the whole discussion is toxic
@[email protected] is on somewhat of a crusade against downvotes. They have quite a few comments like that, where they get personally offended by the concept that someone might not like what someone else has to say.
In this thread it was super clear who was downvoting and why. The first comment in this thread was just about clarifying that.
-
@[email protected] is on somewhat of a crusade against downvotes. They have quite a few comments like that, where they get personally offended by the concept that someone might not like what someone else has to say.
In this thread it was super clear who was downvoting and why. The first comment in this thread was just about clarifying that.
on somewhat of a crusade against downvotes
It's true. For me, to downvote an opinion (and this is what the vast majority of downvoting is) is the virtual equivalent of slapping someone in the face, or telling them to shut up. We don't do it in person, we shouldn't do it virtually.
-
on somewhat of a crusade against downvotes
It's true. For me, to downvote an opinion (and this is what the vast majority of downvoting is) is the virtual equivalent of slapping someone in the face, or telling them to shut up. We don't do it in person, we shouldn't do it virtually.
That's your problem then. A downvote is not a slap in the face. It is a very soft way of saying "I disagree" or "I don't like what you are saying".
And yes, we do that in real life.
There is no expectation that everyone has to agree with you, either offline or online.
If you have such a big issue with downvotes and such an enormous misunderstanding what they are, move to an instance that has downvotes disabled and you will never see a downvote again.
A downvote is softer than a negative comment, and if you think a downvote is a slap in the face, how should I interpret your negative comment? A kick in the face?
-
That's your problem then. A downvote is not a slap in the face. It is a very soft way of saying "I disagree" or "I don't like what you are saying".
And yes, we do that in real life.
There is no expectation that everyone has to agree with you, either offline or online.
If you have such a big issue with downvotes and such an enormous misunderstanding what they are, move to an instance that has downvotes disabled and you will never see a downvote again.
A downvote is softer than a negative comment, and if you think a downvote is a slap in the face, how should I interpret your negative comment? A kick in the face?
There is no expectation that everyone has to agree with you, either offline or online.
Egregious straw man, obviously I don't think that.
enormous misunderstanding what [downvotes] are
Says who? You? What if it were you "misunderstanding" this? I know your version is the majority one, but there are plenty of people who agree with me that downvoting is toxic, hence the existence of downvote-free instances.
A downvote is softer than a negative comment, and if you think a downvote is a slap in the face, how should I interpret your negative comment? A kick in the face?
The big difference, to bore you with what you must already know, is that a downvote affects in most default configs the visibility of the comment. So it's effectively a mild form of censorship, which IMO is not "softer" than a negative reply. And it's certainly not better than than a constructive negative reply, which, believe it or not, is possible to do.
The best argument I have seen for your case is that downvoting provides an off-ramp for potentially sterile conflict. I.e. people hit the downvote button instead of replying with rage. That's a decent pragmatic argument. But whatever reason I personally manage to control my rage at other people's "wrong" opinions, so I don't think it's too much to ask them to do the same.
-
There is no expectation that everyone has to agree with you, either offline or online.
Egregious straw man, obviously I don't think that.
enormous misunderstanding what [downvotes] are
Says who? You? What if it were you "misunderstanding" this? I know your version is the majority one, but there are plenty of people who agree with me that downvoting is toxic, hence the existence of downvote-free instances.
A downvote is softer than a negative comment, and if you think a downvote is a slap in the face, how should I interpret your negative comment? A kick in the face?
The big difference, to bore you with what you must already know, is that a downvote affects in most default configs the visibility of the comment. So it's effectively a mild form of censorship, which IMO is not "softer" than a negative reply. And it's certainly not better than than a constructive negative reply, which, believe it or not, is possible to do.
The best argument I have seen for your case is that downvoting provides an off-ramp for potentially sterile conflict. I.e. people hit the downvote button instead of replying with rage. That's a decent pragmatic argument. But whatever reason I personally manage to control my rage at other people's "wrong" opinions, so I don't think it's too much to ask them to do the same.
It's not a form of censorship, it's a form of democracy.
If you are not ok with a downvote reducing visibility, then by extension you should hate upvotes just as much, since they reduce the visibility of everything else.
