Comment by moron4hire | Hacker News Reader

Comment by moron4hire | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yeah, coming up with tricks to "not get drunk", or searching for cheap booze deals, or anything that is really just out of the way burdensome for the sake of nothing more than "more drink".

I don't buy cheap beer, ever. Not even if I'm asked to get a case for a party. If I'm going to drink, I want something I'll enjoy. Cheap beer is about getting a buzz or getting drunk. It always freaks people out, "you shouldn't have spent so much for a party". Why? I don't see it as a choice. Should I have only opened a can of kidney beans for the dish I brought, too? No, I want to have something that I will enjoy, that others can enjoy, too. It's not just about "filling ourselves to the gills on as little money as possible." But that is how people treat beer.

That's not to say I don't get drunk sometimes. The experience of sitting in an innertube on a lazy river is significantly enhanced by alcohol. A wedding party is significantly enhanced by copious alchol. But most days I want to be productive and make things. I can't code or write well--and certainly can't solder at all--when I'm drunk. I similarly don't watch a lot of television, or read a lot of books. I'd like to fill my time with more productive tasks than consumptive ones.

I agree with your reasoning and preferences, but some of us just like cheap beer for the taste. In Northern California a lot of the breweries focus on hoppy flavors, which I don't prefer. I'll just take a bud. My reasoning? Why pay for expensive beer! A bud tastes fine.

In years past, when I went out to bars a lot, I had a few classes of drinks I would buy, depending on my purpose for the night. If I intended to drive home a few hours later after playing some pool, I would just order Bud Light. I was able to drink for the social aspect, it quenched any thirst I had, and at a slow pace because I was playing a lot of pool, it didn't end up intoxicating me all that much. If I didn't have to worry about my ride at all, I would order a more flavorful beer.

I also find cheap American beer to be ideal for the beach.

>I'll just take a bud. My reasoning? Why pay for expensive beer! A bud tastes fine

Can't help but read your reply in a thick southern accent. Personally, if I'm aiming for an aggressive, high volume night, I'll take a busch over a bud.

Wasn't expecting this in the comments, but super appreciated. The hops arms race must end. I hope we will all go back to drinking delicious, sessionable lagers soon and realize the IPA/microbrew snobbery mindset so prevalent today is a big mistake, both socially (alienating to the uninitiated and highfalutin) and for the beer drinker's palette (overwhelming, masking flavors).

For what it's worth, the microbrewery scene doesn't have to be what it is today. At it's best it would just be a huge range of subtly different beers to give people more things to explore and find a favorite. As is, there's this undying devotion to IPAs and ever-hoppier tastes. There's nothing wrong with non-microbrew, but I'd be happiest of all to see microbreweries open up to exploring more of the possibilities for beer.

I'm glad to see my local (Fort Collins) beer scene swing that direction. See the IBUs in the various beers at Pateros - http://pateroscreekbrewing.com/pcbc/beers

New Belgium has Shift ( http://www.newbelgium.com/beer/detail.aspx?id=fc35795d-8d9d-... ) as a good session beer.

Fort Collins Brewery has a nice list of less hoppy beers:

http://www.fortcollinsbrewery.com/brews/red-banshee/

I like that I can still get the crazy IPAs, but there's a ton of other good stuff to drink too.

As someone who isn't big on too-much-hops, I've been able to find plenty of interesting microbrews without. As much as I'd certainly a shift away from the so much hops, you needn't feel deprived even in this environment if you keep your eye out.

As to hops, for myself I do enjoy extremely hoppy beers, just not nearly as much as I enjoy less hoppy beers.

No, I want to have something that I will enjoy, that others can enjoy, too.

It's worth noting that the "appreciation" of fine beers, wines and spirits is often an excuse to inebriate while convincing oneself that it's actually a higher pursuit. The simple exercise of bifurcating products by price, and assuming that correlates with quality, is flawed.

Thinking through friends and peers, the ones who show the greatest specialization of their drink (only the finest vintages and best, small-brewer beers and long aged bourbon) are the ones who drink the most. But it is shrouded by a classy veneer.

Anything can be taken to an extreme, but there's a lot of room in the middle for exactly what he's saying.

I rarely drink more than one beer in a sitting. But if the only thing being offered is Budweiser or similar, it'll be zero. I don't take it to an extreme, and am perfectly happy with a Sam Adams or similar decent big names, but I'm not going to waste the calories on something awful.

It's not a matter of "a higher pursuit", just a matter of taste, no different from preferring to drink nothing than, say, Mountain Dew.

Sure there is, but I'm replying specifically to their comment that-

"Cheap beer is about getting a buzz or getting drunk."

Cheap and expensive beer are made with close to identical processes, with the same controls and outcomes. Often beers are "cheap" purely as a function of the scale of the operation, but they still use the same quality ingredients and processes.

People often buy cheap beer because they actually prefer it (just as many, many people prefer lighter beer, which is something that many of my Canadian countrymen can't understand), or because the taste differences are so small that they can't justify the extra expense.

When you find yourself in the position of differentiating yourself from those other people -- that your own drinking is more cultured and justified -- it's time to take a step back and seriously contemplate things, because it's almost always a cover.

I don't know what accounts for it, but cheap bear definitely does not have the same outcomes. Budweiser, Coors, etc. are just not very good.

You're right that tastes can vary. Some people do prefer the cheap stuff, somehow.

But you're applying a blatant double standard here. You're saying that we should realize that some people prefer the cheap stuff, and then simultaneously turning around and saying that "almost always" preferring the expensive stuff is a cover. No, it's just taste.

You have to decide: is it legitimate to prefer different kinds of beer, or is it a cover? If it's a cover, it has to work both ways. If it's not, then you can't accuse people who don't want to drink Miller Lite of being secret alcoholics just because they want something that costs more than 50 cents a can.

There is no double standard at play here. The guy who likes <some craft beer> has found something he appreciates and enjoys, and there is nothing wrong with that.

The guy who elevates himself above the hordes and their cheap beer, on the other hand...it isn't really about the product anymore.

cheap bear definitely does not have the same outcomes.

Some products aren't filtered as much. Some have different blends of ingredients. Some are fermented more or less. And so on. But those things seldom impact the actual price in any material fashion, instead are subjective choices of the brewer based upon their market.

Filtering is interesting, because at one point the premium products (in many categories -- beers, wines, coffee, etc) earned their position because they were filtered more, while the cheap swill of the masses where the slurry products full of bits and grinds. As filtering became mainstream and inexpensive, unfiltered and raw -- doing less -- became the sign of a premium product.

Maple syrup was original graded based on its use as a sugar substitute, so the lightest least maple-y syrup was given the highest grade, and the stuff that actually tastes like maple syrup is not the Grade A stuff.

I've wondered about this for a long time. It's made me feel weird liking the "lower-grade" maple syrup more. I want all the maple-y goodness, not just sugary liquid. Thanks for pointing that out, didn't think I'd learn that in a beer thread.

That's like saying a home made burger from top notch ingredients is made with close to identical processes as a McDonald's one. Except of course that they use worse ingredients and cut on all possible costs as long as it still tastes kind of burger-like.

Unless you disagree that they for example replace a lot of the barley with rice and corn - I don't really see how can you claim it's the same thing.

No, it's not like saying that at all.

"Unless you disagree that they for example replace a lot of the barley with rice and corn"

The ingredient lists of the "cheap" beers were, in most cases, set in the 1800s, and remain unchanged. And they were set when rice was much more expensive in the US. And indeed even today rice is neck and neck with barley -- they aren't saving a penny using rice. Instead it was used specifically because it gave a lighter taste, because, again and amazingly, this is a preference of many drinkers. Many Japanese beers are heavy on the rice, and are considered "premium" products for it.

The notions of expensive versus cheap as a patron of a brand are often completely detached from reality.

This isn't true. See the ingredients in your cheap beer. You will see: "Non malted cereals", that is, rice and transgenic corn. More a lot of conservants.

> Thinking through friends and peers, the ones who show the greatest specialization of their drink (only the finest vintages and best, small-brewer beers and long aged bourbon) are the ones who drink the most. But it is shrouded by a classy veneer.

I come from a place where people will polish a 24 in a night. I have an appreciation for fine spirits, but I don't think that I "drink the most," and additionally, when I drink, it's more to enjoy the liquor, then get hammered (though, I do that, too). My appreciation comes from drinking a varied variety of beer, rather than just the same thing ad infinitum.

[W]hen I drink, it's more to enjoy the liquor, then get hammered.

[W]hen I drink, it's more to enjoy the liquor than get hammered.

Hmmm . . . is it the former or the latter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com