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 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.

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.

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.

So are you or are you not advocating for the murder of Notch? If so, I will oppose you at all costs as I would any extremist. If not, then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?

Social Democrat is “a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.”

That’s what a demsoc is. Social democrats support capitalism with social programs.

You should tell Webster they're wrong. And Wikipedia. And Brittanica.

By their definitions, a Socdem's insistence on using democracy at all costs is what differentiates between them and demsocs.

By why is it so important for you to insist everyone use your nonstandard definition of the terms? Also, your calling us "succdems" tells me exactly everything I need to know about your permission. If I'm not willing to murder people, I'm less than human to you enough to be given a silly nickname.

“Tankies don’t have a soul and they’re going to kill you first so it’s okay to let the nazis kill them actually” I’m a REAL leftist :D

At this moment, you're on the wrong side of the "First they came for" poem because you're the one rejecting the Left.

Interesting. I'm not a Tankie a tall. That's kinda the point.

with no gender and no country

Wow. How many people would you murder to preserve your precious gender identity?

And yet nobody minds the aggression of capitalism and the right on anybody other than well off cishet white men 🤔

Really? NOBODY minds that? I can't be pro-LGBTQIA without believing that any possible system except strict communism will work? You're talking black & white thinking, the same as the anti-LGBTQ extremists. There are miles of Left, even far left, that aren't Authoritarian Communism (that isn't authoritarianism but does involve Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the exertion of authority. I was fucking THERE, marching there, when they legalized gay marriage in my state, one of the first in my country. I had a good friend be in the first 50 gay marriages in my state. Does it not count if I'm not a Tankie? All my friends who were out there risking their safety against the Catholic alt-right violence in my state didn't count?

Look, you touched a nerve here, and I'm trying to take a breath. Maybe I misread you. Are you genuinely trying to say that you can't oppose far-right violence without being a Communist? Or (perhaps just as bad) are you trying to say that if I'm not ok with violence against queer and transgender individuals that I need to be ok with violence against all liberals?

And I'd like to quantify that I got hit this morning with a dozen replies putting me in the "liberal them" pile, basically agreeing that if I don't strongly support violence against the non-Communist supermajority, I'm a liberal and have no right to call myself a leftist. I hate the tearing down of the pacifist Left I keep seeing.