• TriflingToad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            1 month ago

            uhh I don’t remember the full story but here’s what I know.
            There was a subreddit called r/195 from some people who lived together in an apartment or dorm in room 195. They would shitpost and it eventually caught on. After they shut down the sub for whatever reason people moved to r/196 to shitpost on instead.

            why there’s “onehundredandnindeysix” and “196” is because the moderators of the 196 Lemmy sub power tripped and tried to move to lemmy.world, so half the community split to another version and half stayed on the existing one (the mods cancelled the move to Lemmy.wirld)
            I personally use the “onehundredandnindeysix” one.

            (also sorry if typos or sthm, I’m on a weird Lemmy interface that’s confusing)

            • squaresinger@lemmy.world
              2·
              1 month ago

              Thanks a lot for the summary! Hard to find information like that.

              Is there a theme or something to the posts there?

      • socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        1 month ago

        It depends on the state/country. Where I am you can get a drunk in public charging, but DUI requires operating a motor vehicle.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        3·
        1 month ago

        I think that makes sense too. Sure a drunk cyclist is less of a problem than a drunk motor vehicle operator.

        But as the third party you still don’t want 100 kg (200 pounds) of dude and aluminium frame running into you at 20 km/h (12.4 mph), especially if you are a pedestrian, a second cyclist, or a biker.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          1·
          1 month ago

          i always feel that a distinction needs to be made between people effectively walking on the bike and people who go fast, same as how walking down a corridor is obviously fine but running (or god forbid sprinting) isn’t allowed because it can genuinely harm people.

        • teuniac_@lemmy.world
          4·
          1 month ago

          Absolutely. A cycle can kill someone if they are unfortunately. But a car can kill dozens of people at the same time.

          In terms of policy and policing it makes sense to look at outcomes. Heavily policing drunk cycling would result in more drunk driving, which would end up killing more people. So however much drunk cycling is policed, drunk driving should be policed significantly more.

    • Rebecca_Corndogs@lemmy.world
      252·
      1 month ago

      Oh! I know this one! I grew up with an alcoholic narcissist. This is the part where the drunk rants for hours about how unfair the world is and how they’re the real victim.

      You’re not special. You sound exactly like every other “functional” alcoholic right before they end up on the news for killing a mother of two, with a sad faced mugshot, lip poked out like they’re the one who got hurt.

      But hey, what would I know? I’m just a funeral director. It’s not like I have to deal with the aftermath of people like you, right?

      And you’re right—it’s totally unfair to expect you not to drive your drunk ass home. It’s not like you could drink at home, or get a ride, or call an Uber, no! You have to drink and drive. Anything else would be unreasonable.

    • sunflowercowboy@feddit.orgEnglish
      221·
      1 month ago

      Tl;dr - Selfish person thinks people being fully cognitive while driving a 4,000lb vehicle is silly. Makes argument about how governance doesnt defend your life, while also arguing that they should impede on visibly intoxicated people… Like the thing we already do… That he is arguing against…

    • MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      8·
      1 month ago

      Nah, driving is a privilege, not a right. You don’t NEED to d I’ve and you absolutely don’t need to drive while impaired. Even if you think you’re good, you’re not. There are THOUSANDS of cases of people being killed by drunk drivers who thought they were good.

    • teuniac_@lemmy.world
      9·
      1 month ago

      Given the potential to do harm, driving is a privilege. Personal views on whether one can drive under the influence of substances are irrelevant as vulnerable road users would be exposed to much more risk than the driver. Bystanders pay the risk that’s taken by the driver.

      It would be good if societies would work in a way that acknowledges that not everyone can/should drive or owns a car. This would mean better public transport, improved zoning, better facilities for walking and cycling.

    • Nelots@lemmy.zip
      11·
      1 month ago

      the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny

      I know, right? That’s why I should be allowed to wildly swing a machete around public spaces. Because limiting my ability to do so is tyranny!!! And kids should be able to bring grenades to school because we wouldn’t want to impede on their rights! Fucking /s if you couldn’t figure that out.

      And your entire gun analogy makes zero sense. Regardless of anybody’s opinion on gun control laws, it is true that you will be able to better defend yourself against a bad guy with a gun if you also have a gun. But driving while you’re drunk will not make you any safer when the guy in front of you is also drunk. The two subjects are nothing alike.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      231·
      1 month ago

      What the fuck is all of this? Are you trying to rationalize your own drunk driving?

      You do not understand tolerance. Start here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2764986

      This study demonstrated that heavy social drinkers, categorized by their persistent and predominant adult pattern of drinking and regular bingeing, exhibited comparable alcohol-induced impairment to that of light social drinkers in such areas as fine motor and dexterity skills (Pegboard) and processing and encoding functions (DSST) following consumption of a moderate-to-heavy dose of alcohol (4-5 standard drink equivalent).

      Basically even if you don’t “feel” intoxicated, your psychomotor performance will be impacted as much as anyone else. If anything, it’s more dangerous, because you’re going to be less aware of how intoxicated you are.

      This effect is especially noticeable if you see someone drinking on Vivitrol. They don’t feel drunk, but they keep drinking and slurring their words, stumbling, etc. The way that alcohol affects the limbic system and creates that sense of euphoria is separate from how it affects your motor coordination, and balance, speech, vision, etc.

      DONT DRINK AND DRIVE. And if you do, I pray you end up in prison for DUI rather than manslaughter. Fuck you for even spending all that time and effort writing an essay on how reckless use of a deadly weapon in public spaces is okay if you’re an addict. Legal limit should be 0.01. It’s a worthless poison that kills people.

  • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
    131·
    1 month ago

    Edit: tangent point the above image in the post reminded me of.

    For every person who thinks they’re interesting for hating a popular thing, there’s ten who will be like OMG YOU THINK YOURE SO SPECIAL AND BETTER THAN EVERYONE when you casually mention you don’t particularly care for a popular thing.

  • Nangijala@feddit.dk
    62·
    1 month ago

    This is so true. For example, Werner Herzog hates the French language, despite speaking it fluently. He once had to regrettably speak French when he was held at gun point by drunk child soldiers in Africa.

    Pretty uninteresting guy, I’d say.

    • t_berium@lemmy.world
      11·
      1 month ago

      I hope this is sarcasm. Herzog is a fascinating guy, even if you don’t watch his movies or read his works. Just watch any interview with him and you might be surprised how interesting his views on things are.