>Are you guys for real?
>Yes. While there is some satire involved, we believe to the very core of our >souls every word we write.
>Who are you?
>We are a group of functional alcoholics based primarily in Denver, CO. Included in our ranks are published novelists, filmmakers, English gentlemen, barflies, punk rock musicians, comedians, outright dastards and admitted boozeheads.
>Do you mind the word alcoholic?
>No. We are taking it back from the fascists. Soon it will be considered a compliment.Or you know, part of the once respected in some circles tradition of self-destruction with style, before everybody started jogging and going vegan to live to 100 years old as a "productive" boring member of society...
Why "like to be omitted"? It's actually part of the allure.
The slogan was "Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse".
Not "Eat kale, be productive, use a task management program, live to 100".
style would require an edgier, more risque substance, and a narrative. but you'll never see it. i think even tweakers know better than to spend energy justifying choices to strangers
It is for these that I'm giving up alchol for other things [1]
[1]: https://idp.nature.com/authorize?response_type=cookie&client...
The famous people did not become famous because they drank, but due to other reasons - working their arse off, talent, ambition, networks etc. The reason they are also famous alcholics is just an correlation and not causation.
I don't judge alcohol use but it's an end in itself, and it does not improve anything.
It's nice to enjoy a drink once in a while, but it does not improve a person in any way.
OTOH real decadence has been more sustainable forever the less toxic it is.
I hope they all end up ok.
I still don't trust people that have never been drunks, though. There's something about the forceful rejection of social norms involved in becoming an alcoholic that I find resonates with me. It's akin to the punk ethos. The problem definitely is when people mistake being a drunk dickhead with being punk.
Funny. I've run into many more social norms that promote drinking while socializing, especially at universities and in tech.
As I was growing up I found that "straight edge" and "hardcore Christian" overlapped too much for my comfort. I chalked it up to kids trying to exude a rebellious attitude within the safe confines of the Christian narrative. That didn't seem as authentic to me as the kids who started anarchist punk or satanic grind bands.
Basically, there were some behaviors that served as the narc test. Straight edge kids had a self-declared pass because of their morals. "I don't drink, see? I have an x tattooed on my hand." Those morals conspicuously seemed to align with what "good Christian kids" were taught to believe. This was outlined in stark relief as I realized more and more bands around me labeled themselves as "Christian".
I hadn't revisited that conclusion in a long time, but a cursory glance signals to me that the logic is still sound. It seems like it was my own allergic reaction to cynicism, which I think MacKaye et al might at least respect.
While both "straight edge" and "hardcore Christian" would not drink I never found them to have much overlap or common ground beyond that. When I was growing up people who self-identified as "straight edge" where far more likely to involved in the far left, anarchist and/or anti fascist scene. I never knew someone who didn't drink for purely religious reasons to describe themselves as "straight edge".
Hemingway wrote, and Hemingway drank, but in that order on any given day.
[edit: I agree with your point, I just wanted to clarify re: Hemingway specifically]
Everything was great, if a bit intense, for the first few months. It felt like it was us against the world and we were invincible. Slowly but surely, though, cracks began to emerge. One of us would hit a rough patch, drop out, and move home (sometimes after totaling a vehicle). Others started getting into petty crime and became convinced the FBI was after us - it didn’t help that one girl’s Father actually was a fed who became increasingly concerned about his daughter’s erratic behavior. I think all of us started seeing shadow people and realized the downward spiral we were in.
Things kind of ended after that first year when most of the group couldn’t handle the lifestyle and school simultaneously. The few of us who didn’t drop out went on to varying degrees of success from solid middle and upper middle class lives to one guy who started a company and is now worth a couple hundred million. It was a crazy time with some pretty wild memories that I wouldn’t take back - but certainly wouldn’t recommend.
I've given away the ending, but his book ("This Drinking Life") is well worth reading. (As a biography, not as a guide to help anyone quit drinking).
It could be a trip into the woods, a religious retreat with other people, or a stay at a quiet hotel far from home.
I’ve done all three. When I have to make the long drive to my parents for a mandatory family get together, I’ll book a hotel halfway to take time for myself.
The idea is to get away from your normal environment and sit down with yourself. I usually bring my kindle and a notebook.
That's like saying to someone "instead of kinky BDSM you could accomplish the same by making sweet tender love".
I don't think it works for everybody.
I like getting drunk on my own once in a while, but I agree with the previous poster. The article is unconvincing. Nearly every point is something that doesn't need alcohol, something that is really questionable whether it's actually a good thing, or an opaque metaphor about a monkey. There are certainly advantages to drinking alone, but the article reads more like self-convincing rationalizations from an alcoholic, and fails to actually point out why alcohol is even necessary for most of this.
That's fine - but to suggest alcohol is a good way to understand yourself better is bs imo. There are far better ways/substances.
Get drunk when you want to by all means, but don't try and paint it as 'good for yourself'. There are far better substances if you want to do some instrospection!
That's not what I got from the article. It seemed to me to say that alcohol could be used to get to know one's self better. Truly getting to know one's self isn't always safe. Nothing risked, nothing gained.
I have a prescription for benzos. I’ve used them a couple of times to help during a retreat. (And family gatherings…) But I found benzos to leave me much clearer-headed than alcohol and they don’t mess with my antidepressant.
(Though perhaps I could train myself mentally to be able to enter these more loose states w/o alcohol, and that would be even better?)
I quit a bit over a year ago. Never properly addicted, but Australian culture has it so firmly embedded it's scary. I'm a better person for it, and I don't miss it.
If I want to feel wasted the next day I'll do 120% in the garage gym. Under the bar I both find myself, experience euphoria afterwards, and retain the ability to be wrecked the next day should I choose to.
But it'll be a good kind of wrecked, more likely.
- No it doesn't. It distracts you from that endeavor. If you sit at a table with no TV or phone and do nothing, you will have a significantly more interesting and honest dialog with yourself if you are sober.*
This pre-assumes you can have a honest dialog with yourself sober.
I've had plenty of interesting insights into all sorts of things while inebriated that remained interesting and insightful long after I'd sobered up. Maybe this doesn't work for you but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for anyone.
- No it doesn't. It distracts you from that endeavor. If you sit at a table with no TV or phone and do nothing, you will have a significantly more interesting and honest dialog with yourself if you are sober.
I don’t think that the fact that you disagree with a statement qualifies that statement as a syllogism.
I read those three statements as being distinct (for example “preferred cocktail” is a different subject from “comfortable silence”) though I will concede that all three statements do share a general theme of “the author enjoys drinking alone.” However, discussing various reasons for enjoying something does not qualify a statement as a syllogism.
While I also do not generally agree with the author, I’m not a big fan of “things I disagree with are Wrong in terms of fundamental logic. Anything I don’t like but Others do is wrong because those Others lack the fundamental Brain Power to Understand The World(tm) like me. To disagree with me is to commit an Aristotelian error of the highest order.”
It’s honestly an incredibly depressing attitude to come across, and it’s pretty much universally held by people that spend a lot of energy being “Not Mad” at not getting invited to parties.
Maybe you might feel differently about who is the arbiter of logic if you cracked open a nice beer?
Removing the flowery language, here are the claims and supporting arguments, along with my rebuttals.
* Drinking alone helps you understand yourself better.
- No it doesn't. It distracts you from that endeavor. If you sit at a table with no TV or phone and do nothing, you will have a significantly more interesting and honest dialog with yourself if you are sober.
* Drinking alone lets you drink a lot of alcohol fast, in your preferred cocktail or beverage.
- Yes and this is why it is dangerous. Drinking tasty alcohol fast is a great way to get addicted. Or at the very least damage your health, both short and long term.
* Drinking alone provides you with comfortable silence.
- Drinking has nothing to do with this. Alcohol is a non-sequitur. You have to orchestrate the silence regardless of whether alcohol is involved.
That's it. It's just repeating these 3 points in different ways.