Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes

[halfeye]

like with poison in Halloween candy I genuinely just don't think it actually happens.

Not deliberately, but sadly it happened at least once:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-67067171

[Rater202]

Alcohol has a chemical effect on your psychological processes, altering your thought patterns and perceptions in ways that some people enjoy.

This means that one can form a chemical dependency on it.

Once you've formed a chemical dependency on it... You kind of... Need it. More and more and more of it. You can't function without it. If it gets bad enough you're just guzzling down whatever you can get, you don't even like it anymore, you just need it.

Lots of people don't know the difference between drinking alcohol and rubbing alcohol.

Incidents have occurred.

You check into a rehab center and they'll take away your mouth mash and perfume/cologne because people can and have drunk that **** to get their fixes when they couldn't get their preferred stuff.

[LaZodiac]

Not deliberately, but sadly it happened at least once:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-67067171

Okay, that's a tragic accident. The myth of "people put poison/drugs in Halloween candy on purpose" is what I was referring to, a thing that does not happen at all (save for the incident that made people raise the myth panic up in the first place, a man trying to kill his own children).

Alcohol has a chemical effect on your psychological processes, altering your thought patterns and perceptions in ways that some people enjoy.

This means that one can form a chemical dependency on it.

Once you've formed a chemical dependency on it... You kind of... Need it. More and more and more of it. You can't function without it. If it gets bad enough you're just guzzling down whatever you can get, you don't even like it anymore, you just need it.

Lots of people don't know the difference between drinking alcohol and rubbing alcohol.

Incidents have occurred.

You check into a rehab center and they'll take away your mouth mash and perfume/cologne because people can and have drunk that **** to get their fixes when they couldn't get their preferred stuff.

Well aware of that. It's a local "thing" up here that mouth wash shouldn't be sold to certain groups because it has alcoholic content in it. The thing is; there's been no actual proof of this happening up here ever! Everyone just takes it on bad faith that "oh those nasty X's are just gonna drink the mouthwash to get drunk", and I find that to poorly reflect on the people in question who say that.

Anyway, with regards to new thread title, I think "Better Than The Last One" is the correct choice.

[Peelee]

I'm not saying they wouldn't regret it. But they'd absolutely try it.

And nobody wants to be on the receiving end of that lawsuit.

Just because you can sue doesn't mean you can win.

Okay, that's a tragic accident. The myth of "people put poison/drugs in Halloween candy on purpose" is what I was referring to, a thing that does not happen at all (save for the incident that made people raise the myth panic up in the first place, a man trying to kill his own children).



Well aware of that. It's a local "thing" up here that mouth wash shouldn't be sold to certain groups because it has alcoholic content in it. The thing is; there's been no actual proof of this happening up here ever! Everyone just takes it on bad faith that "oh those nasty X's are just gonna drink the mouthwash to get drunk", and I find that to poorly reflect on the people in question who say that.

And it's not like alcohol isn't legal and cheap to start with. Sure, good stuff gets pricey (even for loose definitions of "good") but go to the fortified wine section and scope out how much Night Train or Thunderbird you can get for twenty bucks and mouthwash doesn't really seem to compare.

Also, it's pretty easy to take an empty mouthwash bottle and full it with liquor to boot, if you really want the "drinking mouthwash" look.

[Keltest]

Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!

We had somebody get drunk off mouthwash and cooking wine once and crash into the building where I work. Its totally a thing that people will do.

Now I'm 100% certain that it was the cooking wine that was responsible for the drunkenness part, but if youre not able to get regular wine (say, the police have marked your ID so that people wont sell it to you because you have a chronic problem with it) then it starts looking a lot more attractive, and as a rule of thumb people who are such out of control alcoholics that they get banned from purchasing it don't really think these things over critically.

[Peelee]

Yeah, it definitely happens, but not as much as is commonly played up. It's gonna be pretty unusual to actually see someone drinking mouthwash.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, it definitely happens, but not as much as is commonly played up. It's gonna be pretty unusual to actually see someone drinking mouthwash.

You see it more often in places where stores stop selling liquor after midnight.

(RIP Trevor Moore)

[Devils_Advocate]

I suggest "Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes 2: I have strong opinions about this subtitle".

More importantly, I'd like to suggest an explicit note that public policy is too consequential to be appropriate for the thread. (I'd have thought that it also qualifies as "real-world politics" more clearly than anything else, but what do I know?)

Yes. I find it an incredibly useful tactic.

That's fortunate for you, but I doubt that that's normal.

Regardless of how "honest", asking this is against the rules, especially to a moderator.

Which part(s) of the rules?

I'm not sure how to interpret your use of "scare quotes". I was specifying my intended tone, as discussed elsewhere in this thread.

[Bohandas]

You check into a rehab center and they'll take away your mouth mash and perfume/cologne because people can and have drunk that **** to get their fixes when they couldn't get their preferred stuff.

Stand-up comedian John Mulaney has a joke in his routine about doing this when he hit rock bottom with alcoholism. He was at a party and they couldn't figure out whether a particular bottle contained whiskey or perfume; it turned out it was perfume but he still drank all of it.

[Metastachydium]

Stand-up comedian John Mulaney has a joke in his routine about doing this when he hit rock bottom with alcoholism. He was at a party and they couldn't figure out whether a particular bottle contained whiskey or perfume; it turned out it was perfume but he still drank all of it.

Any perfume that is indistinguishable from whiskey unless tasted is pretty bad at being a perfume, I'd say.

[Peelee]

Which part(s) of the rules?

Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere:
[...]
Comments that accuse other posters of lying, being deliberately obtuse, being or acting ignorant, or similar inherently insulting attacks on others’ good faith

Accusing others of trolling falls under this category, even when asked honestly. I used quotes to emphasize this. I apologize that i did not convey it well enough.

Also, new thread is here.

[Devils_Advocate]

Accusing others of trolling falls under this category, even when asked honestly. I used quotes to emphasize this. I apologize that i did not convey it well enough.

Okay. I didn't accuse you in any sense of the word I'm aware of. An accusation is a type of statement, not a type of question, as I understand it. And, like, that's not just a nitpick. I wasn't trying to convey a claim that you were trolling; not even through implication. Straight up not my meaning. A suspicion, sure, but a healthy level of suspicion that one is being trolled is a perfectly reasonable response to offbeat statements online. That's not something that anyone should take personally. I wouldn't fault anyone for suspecting that some of my statements are trolling, though they're not.

Also, I don't see how to productively respond to denials that subjective things are subjective, as with "inherently insulting" and many, many other phrases. That those particular words would be applied to descriptions of Ken M's brand of tomfoolery is doubly confounding. So I'm pretty sure that there are multiple disconnects here, even if not all are immediately relevant.

Is asking if someone was being sarcastic also against the rules in your opinion?