I'm still not sure that's an ideal analogy, though, because it still misses an analogue to a key angle that the article brings up: nature hikes don't engender things like sexual harassment in quite the same way.
Alcohol should not be a key factor for people to network and have fun, especially in professional spaces.
The only 'hike' I've ever seen in a professional office setting was when the department rented out a movie theater and my boss decided that we'd walk a mile together to get to the theater. Of course that was more of an urban stroll than a nature hike. Is watching Tron Legacy a legitimate part of a professional environment? It was that day.
It's not called "social lubricant" for nothing.
While we're far and away from the Madmen era all day drinkathons, it is certainly acceptable in professional spaces and capacities for a little alcohol to be shared.
It's certainly not required, but I wouldn't say it's unprofessional to have a couple drinks at a professional event offering them.
That's definitely not true. There are a lot of people who believe alcohol has absolutely no place in any professional setting.
Eg, quoting from the article: "These scholars don't want everyone to become teetotalers, or for conferences to ban alcohol altogether. They just want to be able to tackle the social labors of being an academic without the expectation to imbibe." and "Pearl isn't arguing that there shouldn't be any alcohol-related events, she said."
Also, "no one in the HN thread is saying no alcohol."
While your statement is true, I don't think it's useful to point to extreme viewpoints as a reply to a comment saying that we shouldn't use an "all or nothing scenario".
Any more than it would be useful to point out that that, in a piece arguing for vegetarian alternatives, that there some people who insist that no one ever eat meat. Sure, they exist, but it derails the topic.