https://i.imgur.com/E2QWbl0.jpg

Assuming you're talking about beer.

The basics of brewing are really, really simple. Tiny variations in this brewing process can result in starkly different flavours in the final brew. Nobody will expect you to know the quirks of their particular "brew", as long as you are familiar with the basic process. Wikipedia should be fine for this. Any brew process is just a variation on the basics: learn these and you should be fine and won't look like an idiot.

Other things to look into are:

The differences between cold fermentation lager brews and traditional ale brews.
The different hop varieties (usually categorised into old-world and new-world hops) and what flavours are associated with them eg: citrus, floral.
What malt is, and how different ways of cooking it affects the flavour, and the colour (eg: burnt/ roasted malts producing dark chocolatey beers and porters)
The difference between fined/unfined (hazy) beers and the techniques used to produce clear beers.
Look into some alternative substrates eg: wheat beers and how these are made.

Again, a quick google search or wikipedia article should be fine. The beauty is that every brewing process is different so you really only need to familiarise yourself with the basics to not come off as a noob, because nobody will expect you to know the eccentricities of their particular process until it is taught to you. In other words, don't worry!

source: biology degree, years of alcoholism.

no

I don't care how tall you guys are, and you don't care how tall I am.

Seeing Sal being toxic to people for flimsy reasons in tftv threads is so familiar now.... it's kinda just become warm and comforting to see.

Time to rethink my life.

why did i click on this thread?

Admirable because he is the only caster past and present who has been able to consistently identify and call out cheeky plays.

So what you're saying is the Thirty Years War may have been started and fought by people citing scripture as their motivation for killing non-believers, but when you examine the geopolitcal, social and historical forces at work you can't attribute the violence solely to Christianity? Huh, sounds like a nuanced opinion. Please explain why this reasoning cannot be applied to Islam?

Also, lmao at

Followed by

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I give up.

An estimated 25-40% of the population of Germany died during the series of religious conflicts known as the 30 years war. Total death toll is estimated at 7,500,000. U r dumb.

Crusades didn't end in 1260, which I guess explains why the vast majority of the battles that should be on this map are missing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fml. Have you heard of the 30 years war? The pogroms? The Inquisition? The Northern Crusades? The hussite wars? The Albigensian Crusades? The Reformation? These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are countless other historical examples.

Also, since you seem to be using that image to demonstrate a point, that "crusade battles" map appears to be dated 1090, which is before the first Crusade even started so fuck knows where they got their information from. I can also tell off the top of my head (being an EU4 and CK2 nerd) that it's missing the Battle of Varna and the sack of Constantinople.

My point isn't "hurr durr what about the bible, Christians r just as bad." My point is actually the opposite. Christians no longer participate in large-scale religious violence. So there must be something else at work here OTHER than the religious text.
I'm suggesting that if there is a solution to the problem, it's not going to be found by criticising the Qu'ran, or banning the Qu'ran, or burning the Qu'ran, or banning Islam. Because, short of wide-scale genocide, criticising or banning religious texts has never worked. People are still going to read and worship and choose to believe their dumb shit.

IMO unless people want the violence to continue for another 1000 years we're going to have to approach this in a more nuanced way.
But that's never going to happen when you have one side refusing to awknowledge there even is a problem and screaming ISLAMOPHOBIA, and the other side refusing to awknowledge "an eye for an eye" isn't a solution and screaming CUCKS and VIRTUE SIGNALLERS.

I didn't say Islam is exempt from criticism. I don't have bad taste in my mouth from you criticising Islam. I didn't employ any whataboutism and I didn't mention Islamaphobia. Infact, as a bisexual atheist I have an extreme problem with a belief system that advocates beheading me or throwing me from rooftops because of who I am. But good job on knocking down that strawman you set up.

Konr m8 you realise the Bible is also full of heinous, contradictory, warmongering, gay-hating, heathen-stoning backwards shit right? Yet you don't have religious Christian extremists committing these acts of terror today. What people are suggesting is that there are perhaps cultural, social, economic, historical and geopolitical factors at work here. Perhaps the reasons for this shit, and therefore the solutions to it, are slightly more nuanced than "Islam = bad, Quran = bad."

Deus Vult. Lrn 2 crusade u casual.

My constituency (Wantage) had a conservative majority of over 20,000 in the last election. It is the safest of safe seats. Once again I will go to the polls and once again my vote will be discarded and ignored, along with the votes of tens of millions of other British people who do not have the luxury of living in a marginal constituency. Electoral reform is not a matter of preference but a matter of universal suffrage.

We are on course for a massive, unchallengeable Tory majority with zero checks and balances based off less than half of the actual vote.

We already have two houses of parliament. It would be so simple to make one house (preferably the commons) follow proportional representation while keeping the parliamentary constituencies represented in the second house (preferably what is now the 'lords'). But no. Instead we have this bizarre archaic system where the lower house is grossly disproportionate to the actual vote, and an upper house that consists of a weird undemocratic mix of old nobility and newly appointed political cronies. And on the rare occasion it tries to assert itself and refuses to just rubber-stamp questionable legislation it is threatened with being dissolved becasue it has no democratic mandate. GIVE IT A DEMOCRATIC MANDATE THEN.

(edit: added some stuff about reform)