“Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages” ————————————————————— Can someone please knock me unconscious? Just punch me in the face.
There you go. Make your guests try and guess the acronym. Winner gets the world's last Zima. To be clear, I support anyone who doesn't want to drink. It's just like others have said, the fact that some 6 figure earning nincompoop got paid to make that up is absurd.
Don't take EANAB if you previously have suffered from any enjoyment in your life. EANAB side effects may include being punched in the face. Not covered by most insurance plans, but ask your doctor about EANAB today!
Certainly the Stanford math majors should chime in here, but if A = B, then B should be no less attractive to those who favor A than A is to those favoring B. Hence, this policy promotes alcohol consumption by non-drinkers no less that it promotes sobriety by drinkers.
When I arrived on campus in the fall of 1986 I learned that acronym, pronounced as it appears (eenabs) and was always amused that the rule seemed to be met as long as there was a two-liter bottle of Coke next to the keg of beer. In other words, it was an inside joke, and it played out as expected. But the nonsense that has gone on in the last 10+ years shows me that Stanford is a shell of what it once was—I would never send my kids there unless there was significant change. And they could start by firing half of the administrators and it would cover tuition for all the undergraduates—a true win-win.
I’m another ‘80s alum, can confirm this. Stanford was very lax about drinking on campus at the time, despite what EANABS might suggest, but that started to change in the 1990s, when for instance they started requiring that IDs be checked at parties.
That was my point in another post. It's a no win. Young people were dying of alcohol poisoning, or at the very least considerably harming themselves by getting blackout drunk. A lot of people said "that's just kids being kid" but if having soda stops one kid from getting blackout drunk then it's good.
I'm a grown ass adult and I always provide alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks when I throw a party.
The ridiculous form to fill out and have approved is a bit much but I do support, for example, the resident advisor being required to make sure parties have some non-alcoholic drinks.
The problem with being "nice, Nati, is that the left takes advantage of it, leaving you a sucker Kevin's approach is now the only way. Treat their lunacy with the withering contempt it deserves. Because, if you don't, it will only escalate and then you'll be left only with the alternative of physically hurting them in order to save society. And we are fast approaching that point.
There's plenty of things I think is reasonable to push back on - were real harm is caused, or your rights are infringed. I don't really think this is either.
But did you try the laguanita non alcoholic IPA? It's almost as good.
If I do certain things and live until May 5th I'll be clean and sober for thirty years. I didn't drink and do drugs because I liked the taste, and living under a overpass on I-75 wasn't camping, no matter how I tried to convince myself and others.
If you think that the Star Chamber proceedings that these clowns run don't cause "real harm," think again. If you think that people who reflexively stomp on due process are normal or to be trusted, you will rue that someday. These people are totalitarian lunatics who hate liberty and decency. "Including" them in a decent society is a huge mistake.
No “real harm” has been caused? Dead kids, destroyed futures, administrators harassing kids just to harass them is no “real harm?” When your fellow leftists decide to eat you, which they most certainly will eventually, don’t be surprised when no one is there to support you. After all, if there is “no harm” in destroying others in the name of being “nice,” then there is “no harm” in destroying you for the same flimsy be. Leftists always end up eating their own. One day you will find yourself claiming you didn’t know, but you can never claim that you were not told.
Has anyone ever been to an event where alcohol was served but non-alcoholic beverages weren't available?? Does "equally attractive" mean you must have snazzy mocktails or risk punishment and fines??
Sure, I’ve been to keggers where the non-alcoholic beverage came from the kitchen faucet. That’s all the EA meant in EANAB in the 1980s when I was at Stanford: you’ve got to have something besides water. So people made sure to put some Coke out, even though it wasn’t really policed.
The suicidal soccer player was harassed over spilt coffee reported not by the "victim" but by an administrator. AN ADMINISTRATOR. The "victim" did not want her "punished", but the University put her diploma on "hold" the day before graduation...over COFFEE. Nudge the needle???? That is a sledgehammer.
What exactly is this utopia of an “inclusive society?” Specifically? What the hell does that even mean? In plain language?
It seems to me what’s plainly going on is Stanford hired a bunch of middlingly intelligent administrators who are bullying the students they are supposed to serve in an attempt to justify their paycheck. Stanford has 2,288 faculty and a whopping 15,750 administrators. It’s authoritarian style harassment under the thinly veiled guise of moral niceties like “inclusion” and “equity.” How incompetent are these “administrators” that they need 15K of them for a total student population, undergrad plus grad, of around 17K?
Your statement reminds me of Californians attempting to brag about their “great” and “progressive” state - one of the most racially unequal states in the country with a literacy rate towards the bottom and 15% lower than WV, the lowest rate of home ownership in the country, on the lower half of high school graduation rates, middle of the pack on rates of college graduates, by far the highest rate of homelessness in the country, terrible roads, and trash everywhere you walk in urban areas. It’s a joke to claim any of that represents any kind of actual progress. It’s also a joke to think having some rule to make sure there is some minimum quality of non-alcoholic beverages at a friggin frat party accomplishes anything. How infantile.
I'm a recovering addict/alcoholic. I would never expect someone who uses to not drink or do drugs in front of me. I find it annoying that someone who doesn't know me thinks that I am incapable of walking away.
There is a CS Lewis line about how moralizing busybodies produce a tyranny much worse than robber barons.
While this is a small issue, obviously, if you don’t drink, and you feel the need to use authority to manipulate the people who do drink to accommodate you, you are a totally reprehensible piece of shit and you will bring this psychopathic narcissistic behavior to other areas of life that are more significant.
It's not only about addicts. My wife doesn't drink. Just doesn't like it. Some people are pregnant. It's not about 'oh we're afraid sober people can't handle the booze' it's more if people don't want to drink alcohol, they can have something else to drink.
It would have to be a non-alcoholic punch to the face, and I would need to get approval from a harm reduction specialist. So maybe there would be no punch at all. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
“Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages”
—————————————————————
Can someone please knock me unconscious? Just punch me in the face.
LOL. That was the only thing I thought “I’m going to do that myself for my parties.”
There you go. Make your guests try and guess the acronym. Winner gets the world's last Zima. To be clear, I support anyone who doesn't want to drink. It's just like others have said, the fact that some 6 figure earning nincompoop got paid to make that up is absurd.
Don't take EANAB if you previously have suffered from any enjoyment in your life. EANAB side effects may include being punched in the face. Not covered by most insurance plans, but ask your doctor about EANAB today!
Damn you Stanford, now I want a Pepsi.
When I read EANAB, I had to go a pour myself a stiff drink.
Tequila straight up is my dink of choice. I drink it and sing songs in Spanish.
Ya gotta give Cava de Oro, Extra Anejo a shot! ;-)
right? Sounds like something from a communist party
We'll have a DEI administrator look into doing that for you.
Until then, just carry on.
You mean DIE? :-D
This "violation" had me scratching out my eyeballs...
"First, an allegation of hazing after a fraternity member suffered a panic attack."
If you can't find your safe space it can be very scary
Certainly the Stanford math majors should chime in here, but if A = B, then B should be no less attractive to those who favor A than A is to those favoring B. Hence, this policy promotes alcohol consumption by non-drinkers no less that it promotes sobriety by drinkers.
Or am I getting too deep in the weeds here?
When I arrived on campus in the fall of 1986 I learned that acronym, pronounced as it appears (eenabs) and was always amused that the rule seemed to be met as long as there was a two-liter bottle of Coke next to the keg of beer. In other words, it was an inside joke, and it played out as expected. But the nonsense that has gone on in the last 10+ years shows me that Stanford is a shell of what it once was—I would never send my kids there unless there was significant change. And they could start by firing half of the administrators and it would cover tuition for all the undergraduates—a true win-win.
I’m another ‘80s alum, can confirm this. Stanford was very lax about drinking on campus at the time, despite what EANABS might suggest, but that started to change in the 1990s, when for instance they started requiring that IDs be checked at parties.
Yea, but Sam Bankman-Fried lives in a million-dollar cottage rent-free while people are still being stiffed by his fraud.
It's ironic that SBF's law-school parents are allegedly experts in legal ethics.
The ideological foundation of what is happening at Stanford now was firmly in place in the 1980's.
Nat, you are absolutely right. Today's BS had been decades in the making.
Are there similar rules for weed and other substances of choice
Kale must be mandatory ;)
A lot of people don't drink. It's a nice courtesy. You know, you're allowed to be nice sometimes.
That was my point in another post. It's a no win. Young people were dying of alcohol poisoning, or at the very least considerably harming themselves by getting blackout drunk. A lot of people said "that's just kids being kid" but if having soda stops one kid from getting blackout drunk then it's good.
I'm a grown ass adult and I always provide alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks when I throw a party.
The ridiculous form to fill out and have approved is a bit much but I do support, for example, the resident advisor being required to make sure parties have some non-alcoholic drinks.
The problem with being "nice, Nati, is that the left takes advantage of it, leaving you a sucker Kevin's approach is now the only way. Treat their lunacy with the withering contempt it deserves. Because, if you don't, it will only escalate and then you'll be left only with the alternative of physically hurting them in order to save society. And we are fast approaching that point.
I agree. A laugh, or yawn, at the antics seems to be very unsettling for them.
There's plenty of things I think is reasonable to push back on - were real harm is caused, or your rights are infringed. I don't really think this is either.
But did you try the laguanita non alcoholic IPA? It's almost as good.
If I do certain things and live until May 5th I'll be clean and sober for thirty years. I didn't drink and do drugs because I liked the taste, and living under a overpass on I-75 wasn't camping, no matter how I tried to convince myself and others.
Congrats, that's fantastic!
It's like Personal responsibility is a foreign concept
If you think that the Star Chamber proceedings that these clowns run don't cause "real harm," think again. If you think that people who reflexively stomp on due process are normal or to be trusted, you will rue that someday. These people are totalitarian lunatics who hate liberty and decency. "Including" them in a decent society is a huge mistake.
No “real harm” has been caused? Dead kids, destroyed futures, administrators harassing kids just to harass them is no “real harm?” When your fellow leftists decide to eat you, which they most certainly will eventually, don’t be surprised when no one is there to support you. After all, if there is “no harm” in destroying others in the name of being “nice,” then there is “no harm” in destroying you for the same flimsy be. Leftists always end up eating their own. One day you will find yourself claiming you didn’t know, but you can never claim that you were not told.
The fact that their attempts to "prevent harm" are actually causing real harm is the central point of this article
“We are just mandating with extreme penalties that you be a little bit nicer or we will destroy you. That’s all.”
Creepiest shit ever.
Has anyone ever been to an event where alcohol was served but non-alcoholic beverages weren't available?? Does "equally attractive" mean you must have snazzy mocktails or risk punishment and fines??
Sure, I’ve been to keggers where the non-alcoholic beverage came from the kitchen faucet. That’s all the EA meant in EANAB in the 1980s when I was at Stanford: you’ve got to have something besides water. So people made sure to put some Coke out, even though it wasn’t really policed.
It's just trying to foster an inclusive society. I don't think they would have punished over that. But trying to nudge the needle in that direction.
The suicidal soccer player was harassed over spilt coffee reported not by the "victim" but by an administrator. AN ADMINISTRATOR. The "victim" did not want her "punished", but the University put her diploma on "hold" the day before graduation...over COFFEE. Nudge the needle???? That is a sledgehammer.
Talk about reprehensible--that is it.
"Inclusive" is another one of those nice sounding words that is a stalking horse for totalitarianism.
What exactly is this utopia of an “inclusive society?” Specifically? What the hell does that even mean? In plain language?
It seems to me what’s plainly going on is Stanford hired a bunch of middlingly intelligent administrators who are bullying the students they are supposed to serve in an attempt to justify their paycheck. Stanford has 2,288 faculty and a whopping 15,750 administrators. It’s authoritarian style harassment under the thinly veiled guise of moral niceties like “inclusion” and “equity.” How incompetent are these “administrators” that they need 15K of them for a total student population, undergrad plus grad, of around 17K?
Your statement reminds me of Californians attempting to brag about their “great” and “progressive” state - one of the most racially unequal states in the country with a literacy rate towards the bottom and 15% lower than WV, the lowest rate of home ownership in the country, on the lower half of high school graduation rates, middle of the pack on rates of college graduates, by far the highest rate of homelessness in the country, terrible roads, and trash everywhere you walk in urban areas. It’s a joke to claim any of that represents any kind of actual progress. It’s also a joke to think having some rule to make sure there is some minimum quality of non-alcoholic beverages at a friggin frat party accomplishes anything. How infantile.
I'm a recovering addict/alcoholic. I would never expect someone who uses to not drink or do drugs in front of me. I find it annoying that someone who doesn't know me thinks that I am incapable of walking away.
There is a CS Lewis line about how moralizing busybodies produce a tyranny much worse than robber barons.
While this is a small issue, obviously, if you don’t drink, and you feel the need to use authority to manipulate the people who do drink to accommodate you, you are a totally reprehensible piece of shit and you will bring this psychopathic narcissistic behavior to other areas of life that are more significant.
It's not only about addicts. My wife doesn't drink. Just doesn't like it. Some people are pregnant. It's not about 'oh we're afraid sober people can't handle the booze' it's more if people don't want to drink alcohol, they can have something else to drink.
Same. Geezus. The administrative class at these institutions is simply bored which breeds incompetence. Read VDH's "What Happened to Stanford".
I think it is that idle hands thing.
It would have to be a non-alcoholic punch to the face, and I would need to get approval from a harm reduction specialist. So maybe there would be no punch at all. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
Okay how about a karate chop to the face and we have all of the necessary AAPI mediators and ombudsmxn in place to ensure we are being sustainable?
Isn't karate chop cultural appropriation?
Yes but that’s what the AAPI mediators and ombudsmxn are for. Duh.
I like the way you're thinking. But, I think your privilege just disadvantaged all the people who could never learn to karate chop.
Yeah, I never thought of that. Kev is an elitist martial artist who doesn't believe in inclusion.
Where do I sign up for woke membership?
Yes, punch would be an acceptable alternative. Thank you for bringing the punch
There is nothing "borderline" about their sociopathic bent.
You are right.
Community college. Learn a trade. Learn how to build things. How to fix the junk made in China
Power corrupts. Bureaucrats love their power and need to exercise it to legitimize their positions.
The reason houses are unaffordable is because the administrator who came up with that acronym is paid $210,000 per year.
Exactly