site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1061 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for February 27, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What is a "cocktail" colloquially speaking?

Context: Mrs. FiveHour read and then made me read the book Strangers by Belle Burden, a memoir by a wealthy WASP about her sudden divorce. The theme of the book is that her hedge-funder husband suddenly walked out, and she realized that they were, you know, Strangers in the grand scheme of things, that she knew nothing about him if she didn't know he was going to walk out on her. The book is both fascinating and awful, because it's the direct testimony of an unreliable narrator, so there's a ton to pick apart, which is what Mrs. FiveHour and I happen to enjoy doing together. Anyway, one of the repeating elements of her account of her marriage is that her husband came home from work at the money factory, she of course never has any idea what he does exactly, and has a "cocktail." He needs his "cocktail" before he moves on with his evening. But she describes the cocktail he drinks every night as vodka over ice.

My answer: Which...that's not a cocktail, that's a drinking problem. A cocktail has at least two ingredients: gin and tonic, rum and coke, vodka or gin and vermouth, whiskey and soda, bourbon and amaretto, etc. Ice doesn't count, plain water doesn't count. I think in general I would say that to really qualify as a cocktail you need a third element in addition to the first two, the olive in the martini or the lime in a cuba libre, but strictly speaking it's not necessary.

Resulting analysis: Drinking straight vodka every night is not normal. Burden describes it as a cocktail to give it a charming mid-century WASP imprimatur, but just drinking vodka on the rocks is unhinged! Even my Polish family drink vodka as a shot! What Burden is describing isn't a guy with a quirky habit, it's a guy descending into alcoholism. Her entire analysis of the marriage is this: she didn't notice her husband's drinking, excused it as a harmless quirk, when the guy was drinking hard. Maybe not alcoholic hard, but you gotta be a heavy drinker to enjoy sipping straight vodka. It's not like whiskeys where you can fake the connoisseur, when you drink straight vodka you're doing it because you like the alcohol in your system. Mrs. Fivehour and I are thoroughly enjoying picking apart Burden's arguments in this way, she might be the worst marital strategist of all time.

Having a single glass of hard liquor at the end of the day was very normal for men of a certain age. You could set your watch by my grandfather's evening whiskey, and he drank one every evening until he couldn't stand up to get it, same with my best mate's grandpa. Vodka is unusual, though. It seems like something that's basically disappeared in younger generations, particularly in America - US drinking culture in general has much more of a binary between "I'm not drinking" and "I'm getting drunk", which I think comes from the high drinking age and reliance on cars. I'd put a "drinking problem" as a matter of escalation: if left to him/herself, is someone going over time from one, to two, to three...

I've heard "cocktail" colloquially mean 'a heavy alcoholic drink that you sip'. But I mostly agree with your definition. I'd just say I'm having a drink if it's basically straight liquor.

What's interesting to me is your colloquial definition of alcoholic. I'm unsure how much of an alcoholic someone is if they only have one drink a night and just leave it at that. I'd be putting myself on the back of I just stuck to one drink every night.

Me, both my parents, and quite a few of my friends would all be "alcoholics" to you I think.

To me the measure of an alcoholic is how quickly drinking alcohol destroys their life. For some people that is just a single night, they are an alcoholic. For most people it's over thirty to fifty years due to cumulative health and liver damage, I don't think those people are alcoholics. I think the line is somewhere around 5 years.

if they only have one drink a night

"One drink" is often standardized as 0.6 ounces of alcohol. There isn't any indication as to the quantity, but if it was a cup of vodka, then it would be about six standard drinks, which is certainly enough to count.

Sorry, that was unclear, I don't think that having one drink a night makes one an alcoholic.

I think this particular man probably had a drinking problem, and that his wife was unaware of it, much as she seemed to be basically unaware of everything going on in his life. I think drinking straight liquor every single night is indicative of a drinking problem, when combined with the "50 year old man suddenly blows up his family life with zero explanation offered" evidence that makes up the rest of the book.

My definition of an alcoholic would be someone who can't stop themselves from drinking alcohol despite negative consequences. I don't know about one night, but I'd agree with you that someone who lasts fifty years doesn't have much of a problem, because they aren't really facing negative consequences. But if your doctor gives you medicine and tells you not to drink while taking it, or if I tell you that wigilia requires no alcohol, and you go ah shit how am I gonna make it through this? Then I think that's a problem.

[caveat: I haven't read this book, and am not an alcohol person]

Is that 'can't' in a social or philosophical sense, or in a pragmatic one? I barely drink alcohol at all and my tastes are weird, but I can tolerate a couple ounces of Everclear or Smirnoff straight where I start struggling halfway through a normal glass of red wine. It's really easy to get drunk doing it -- a single 3-ounce is between one and three beers, depending on proof -- but if you're sipping it over a few hours that wouldn't be enough for someone with moderate tolerance to really deep in their cups.

I agree with your conclusion about what it's supposed to say, but more because of the ritualized nature and seeming 'need' for it, rather than the amount of alcohol alone or form he was taking it, especially if the amount doesn't increase over time.

((And if Burden drinks herself or is ever prepared drinks by her ex-husband, it might also be intended to say something about reciprocity of interest: there's something very 'try to hit requirements without understanding purpose' to vodka over ice that isn't even hitting the tryhard noob levels of throwing Old Fashioneds or Negroni at someone.))

Is that 'can't' in a social or philosophical sense, or in a pragmatic one?

Could you clarify the question, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I'm genuinely unsure whether normal non-alcoholic people would avoid drinking vodka straight because they it's difficult to keep that much vodka down straight, because anyone who tried would become an alcoholic or would have to already have a strong tolerance, or because it's 'only' an order that would get you weird looks and doesn't match typical tastes.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats