abraxas

I truly don’t understand why so many people love IPAs

Flavor nuance. I don't like hopsy beer myself, but there's a LOT of different profiles out there. I've even found a few IPAs I liked.

As a person who prefers the complex, bright and earthy flavors from grains and yeast, getting face-fucked at the end of every sip by a one-note weed pine cone is so disappointing.

That I'll agree with. Not a lot of drinkers respect the mashbill anymore.

I haven't had any opportunity to try a barleywine that wasn't my wash going into a still, so you're right on that one. That said, there's fairly limited profiles to a lot of those types of beers.

IPAs do have a lot of variety, and all you have to do to change it up is use different hops. I don't love IPAs, and I hate that they're all I see in beer aisles, but I also don't shop beer very much so whatever :)

I heard a real-world explanation about why IPAs are the most common and commonly-sought craft beer. Half the reasons are unflattering, but a few are valid.

1. They're harder to fuck up because the Hops covers every damn thing and is so forgiving. Ever heard a cooking show talk about how hard a perfect Filet Mignon is because you can't hide behind anything and everyone knows what it should taste like? Ditto with a good red ale or even pilsner.
2. Similarly, nobody is known for their signature Filet Mignon because (within reason) a filet is a filet. Ditto with most types of beers. IPAs give opportunity for a lot more variety. Which is why you have more breweries making them, and then more people consuming them. I go out of my way to find non-MGP whiskey because MGP whiskies all taste the damn same to me, and I usually find a couple unique bottles every year. I can respect someone who wants to try a totally new beer every week and just fall back on a few faves.
3. Related again to #2. Beyond being "SO hoppy", IPAs have more unique flavor profiles than all other beers combined. Different hops can net you notes of orange, lemon, grapefruit, or notes of the pith of one of those, or notes of the rind of one of those. Different amounts or processing of hops can give you different intensities of those. That's a lot of flavor profiles from sweet to sour to bitter, all in the same category.

So I'm "basic" nowadays re: beer, and I despise IPAs because I literally cannot stand the bitter&pithy ones (esp Grapefruit Pith), and there's no easy way to know what an IPA will taste like till you've paid for it and cracked it open. I also get reflux and nothing blows that shit out of the water like an IPA. There's a hops shop down the street from me, but if I'm going to brew a beer (super rare, I usually make whiskey or mead) it's gonna be something will a chill flavor profile.

I know. There are absolutely families I know that have this type of conversation. Just because it was funny 30 years ago doesn't mean it can't still be funny now.

It's not cerebral like xkcd, but sometimes I want a comic that I'm not the only person in my town that gets.

Check out the instances that have defederated with the radicalized ones? I hang out in 2 Lemmy instances, still working to finish migrating from here to the other.

I'm not ok with the death penalty for serial killers and rapists, and I think the laws we have now (if they were enforced) cover for corruption.

I have a rule. No matter how shitty the rules, nobody should die for playing by them. Ex Post Facto protections are a hallmark of preventing justice from being another name for authoritarian persecution. Of all people, it tends to shock me that Communists struggle to see that when they are the first to back extreme versions of ACAB-attitudes.

I know rich people who are... just fucking rich and that's it. Lottery, good job. Smart little investment. Most rich people don't destroy lives directly for monetary gain. Is there an indirect effect between wealth distribution and suffering? SURE, but holding someone accountable by violence for something they indirectly effected when it was legal? I just can't see it no matter how they frame it.

It's like COVID opposition. When we didn't have laws against their bullshit (COVID spreader parties?) it is unjust to now go back and pass a law to punish there behavior merely because it caused hundreds of thousands of extra death.

Just look at Florida’s and Texas’ response compared to New York and California

Texas had the 3rd highest mortality rate, and Florida the 18th. Expected death rates should be relative to population density. Florida is 13th and Texas is 13th. Both states are dramatically over-represented per capita in US COVID deaths. Your numbers defend my side.

NY has the 7th highest population density and is past the middle of the pack in terms of deaths. California has the 11th highest population density and was middle of the pack.

The highest death states (other than the one you tried to use for your argument) were Oklahoma and Alabama. Both fairly low in population density. Care to read off the other high-death-toll states? West Virginia, Mississippi, Wyoming, Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona...

In fact, I'll take a step further. In swing states (like Florida), the death rate of Republicans was comfortably higher than of Democrats. It led to conspiracy theories that we were secretly creating and spreading the disease, not the fact that they had literal fucking parties to spread it on purpose.

If the masks and vaxxes make you city rats feel safe then more power to you, but there was KO reason that stuff needed to be part of a global response

The reason we needed it for a global response is that if you didn't do it, it spread to everyone and killed them. Vaccination and prevention only works when universally embraced and/or mandated. Both parties were in full agreement about that until the moment Trump started telling people to drink lysol and bleach instead (and there was a huge uptick in that!). Did you drink lysol at his suggestion?

"Doing you're(sic) own research" is a dogwhistle of far right anti-intellectualism. It's saying "fuck facts, it's all a big conspiracy".

following narratives pushed by MSM like sheep and responding with pictures of feces when presented with an opposing point of view?

With all due respect, his reply to you was dramatically more effective than me sending you facts and being reasonable and polite.

Says more about you than it does about me

It sure does. That I'm stupid enough to think that I can convince flat-earthers that the world is round merely because I've made a point of becoming educated, reading studies, and applying my scientific background to separate the conspiracy theories from the chaff.

I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of "bourgeoisie", or merely "the rich". And (I'm sure you can understand why I'd have a problem) that some folks talk like I'm in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.

I know it's not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I'll happily have a beer with you.

I don't think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling "no true scotsman" even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.

I would say it is quite clearly the most direct context. If I'd written this post now, I'd also point out the quackjobs that you blindly believe and the fact that you're taking fairly defensible references that cite their research and calling them fake news.

Yeah, it's the bit where I've gotten threats on my life.

Sorry, cited the wrong dictionary I guess. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social%20democrats . I'm surprised at Webster disagreeing with everyone else. I figured every dictionary would agree. The dictionaries using my definition are:

Collins, Dictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, Brittanica, Cambridge, Wictionary

So I've got mud on my face, citing the only source that disagrees with me.

But fine. If it really matters that much to a couple people, then there's not a term for what I am. I'm not a DemSoc because I don't realistically think we will achieve complete socialism in my lifetime and I think that's OK in the short term as long as we improve things, and actually preferable until people actually want socialism. That doesn't make me a capitalist.