Europe
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
"Mindful drinking" is no drinking
People aren't allowed to have fun
If you can't have fun without alcohol, you're an alcoholic. Your addiction shouldn't be encouraged and pushed on others.
If you have just one thing in life that brings you joy, then I pity you. Now if people want to gather some friends, get a bottle of wine, some pot, or even nothing while they talk, let them be
Maybe go touch some grass will help
I said that mindful drinking means not drinking, you reacted saying that I'm not wanting people to have fun, implying that alcohol is a requirement to have fun.
If you can't have "joy" without alcohol, you have a problem, and should worry about that. Your reply doesn't even make any kind of sense.
And also, no, I'm not going to "let people be" when they do things that cause a lot of problems. And yes, alcohol does cause a lot of problems, even when it's "just a beer", and unless you've lived in a cave without anyone else your whole life you have seen it, or participated in it
Maybe start caring about things once in a while, this "let things be" never worked.
This kind of black-and-white thinking is holding back so much positive change in the world.
Yes, any amount of alcohol is worse for your health than none, but being mindful of your consumption is still better than getting plastered every weekend.
Yes, but at some point people can fuck off.
We live in a world where a lot of very useful medicine is bad because of the bullshit idea that they're evil addictive drugs, where cannabis is shown as so terrifying and a marker of criminality, where rich people casually consume cocaine on a regular basis, where cigarette is literally killing people for money, and where alcohol is basically the biggest avoidable cause of death.
I'm sick of having to pretend like people are tiny stupid babies that are going to cry if I don't let them put their fingers in the electrical socket.
Alcohol is a big problem, is extremely costly for society, kills people (and not just the ones that drink it), and supports an immoral industry that fuels a lot of shitty people.
Yes, drinking less is better than drinking more. But at some point, enough is enough. I was basically forced socially to drink alcohol until I grew enough will to accept the "shame" of not drinking, because society is extremely heavily in favour of alcoholism. I don't see why it's fine for alcoholics to pressure others into drinking, but pressuring people into not drinking is too harsh and needs to be done progressively.
Also, it's not like this progressive "grey" thinking has been doing much, since alcohol and cigarettes have been known to he 100% harmful with no real benefit for decades and decades, and yet are still here. What is the end goal, to stop these 200 years after we know for sure that they're bad?
So yeah, rant aside, I get your point, but I think it's the kind of soft thinking that keeps us in this same situation. A bit like with politics, when you try to be a centrist in a context where the dominant side is immoral and actively trying to self-propagate, you just end up playing for their side unknowingly.
Why dont you have a drink and chill out?
I agree with most of the premise of your comment. I downvoted because of what you're advocating for. Yes, alcohol is bad, and it's dumb that it's allowed and other drugs aren't. I don't think the solution is to try to get rid of alcohol though. It's education, and providing choices. Yes, alcohol is bad, but people should be allowed to make bad choices (for themselves). We should be allowing more choice of drugs, rather than trying to force people to only have a small subset. You should get to choose what, if anything, goes into your body, not the government.
Okay, let's put the perspective from another angle.
Should companies be allowed to make money out of an addictive, toxic drug that pushes people to be more violent, irresponsible and basically out of control, and at the same time much more vulnerable to rape?
Yes. I think advertising should be limited, or zero, but selling it should be allowed.
If we follow your logic, there's so much more that shouldn't be allowed. Sugar is incredibly addictive and generally bad for your health (at the quantities we have access to). Shouldn't they not be allowed to sell it? What about cars?
We should be allowed to choose what level of risk we accept for ourselves. It shouldn't be pushed on us, and it should also not affect others though.
Sugar doesn't make you beat up, kill, or rape people. Sugar doesn't actually kill you if you are addicted to it and stop too fast.
Cars are a tool with a lot of uses that would be really hard to replace, but yes, they should be much more restricted, it's absurd that having a 1+ ton metal machine is so easy but carrying a pocket knife is seen as crazily dangerous.
Drinking alcohol has no use, very bad effects, is addictive in one of the worst ways (once again, I don't know of many drugs that actually cause you to suddenly die if you stop too fast), causes horrible behaviours that endanger both the user and people around, funds a horrible industry of pieces of shit.
Even things like heroin or cocaine are not that unilaterally bad.
The only thing that even compares would be cigarettes, as they bring absolutely nothing good at all, and also can kill others, but the scale is very different and no one has ever been killed because of the influence of a cigarette, or raped because of being too high from it.
If we follow my logic, alcohol (and cigarettes) should not be allowed, and that's it. Once it's done you can wonder all you want about sugar, cars and heroin, have debates, etc. Nothing prevents anyone from banning alcohol and not following up with a campaign to ban everything that can be bad.
And one last point, if you ban alcohol, it becomes impossible to advertise it. If you ban advertising, I can guarantee that it will actually not be banned, because the laws are going to be circumvented by lobbies. That's why there are lobbies that have been protecting cigarettes, but there's no such thing as a lobby for heroin or so, a ban is much harder to avoid than a restriction.
Cool, neither does alcohol.
Or I must not have noticed last night when my beer threw me into a murderous rampage.
Well that's a good amount of delusion over there.
Sure, let's pretend that violence is never related to alcohol, and that there has never been a single case of someone using alcohol to rape someone else. Also it's good for health and possibly makes you immortal.
Your individual experience doesn't negate millenia of alcohol-induced violence. Stop the bullshit.
Alcohol reduces inhibitions, but it doesn't "cause" violence.
People who become violent after drinking were already violent before their first sip.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
You'll have to find better than that. Also people who get raped under the influence of alcohol weren't going to be raped anyway, so your invalid argument isn't enough even if you decide to believe it is valid.
People who got raped under the influence could have chosen to not drink. This isn't saying "they asked for it." This is saying that it doesn't make sense to ban alcohol for a choice they made. They can and will still make that choice when it's illegal. This argument is similar to the "don't wear a skimpy outfit if you don't want to get raped" argument, but with the additional step of banning skimpy outfits, because some people were raped.
Have you tried "choosing not to drink", ever? Have you ever had a glass of champagne handed to you to celebrate an occasion, and tried to say "sorry, I don't drink alcohol"?
Because if you did, you would know that there is a constant pressure to drink, because people have a drinking problem and hate seeing others not follow the same tracks, it makes them think about themselves.
Also, you're putting the whole responsibility on the victim here. But even tv shows and movies (which are heavily, heavily in favour of alcohol) almost always have the situation of "creep that tries to get someone drunk to rape them", because yes, you can get someone to drink. Knowingly or not. And the funny part is that the more they drink, the easier it is to get them to drink more. And on top of that, alcohol also makes the perpetrator more likely to act. I guess all of these bad problems it causes are worth the positive parts: cancer risks, addiction, and whatnot. Ah and I forgot, a slight sense of temporary , confused joy.
Also, the outfit isn't correlated to rape. Alcohol is used as a tool to rape. The comparison doesn't work. And an outfit rarely hurts anyone, while alcohol does.
Yes. Many times.
The usual cherrypicking, what a surprise.
Whatever.
I see your post doesn't attract a positive like-ratio but let me just say to you as an ex-alcoholic, I really like your choice of words and it was a good read.
Nope. This is just straight evidence.
I do drink alcohol. But the healthiest thing is to drink no alcohol at all. (German Article)
Not 1 glass of wine a day. Not half a beer. Thr healthiest is none at all.
suru clearly recognizes and mentions that
He does - and still says it is black-and-white thinking holfing back positive change.
No, they acknowledge that zero alcohol is best (βYes, β¦β) while recognizing that a step toward zero (βbutβ) is better than heavy drinking.
βBlack-and-whiteβ refers to the previous comment that the only mindful drinking is zero alcohol, which discourages action by someone who might otherwise make the switch to zero- or near-zero alcohol beer while allowing the occasional standard version.