> Let's also consider the social advantage of those who do imbibe with those who don't in regards to building relationships with superiors at your job. Ok, but

> Let's also consider the social advantage of those who do imbibe with those who don't in regards to building relationships with superiors at your job. Ok, but that "advantage", or lack thereof, is not exclusionary only to non-white, non-males, which was a fundamental premise of the article. You're shifting gears between: "alcohol is evidence of, and further exacerbates, a diversity/inclusion issue stemming from a heavy bias towards white males" to: "alcohol is bad for the workplace, regardless of context, because it is exclusionary and leads to problems and implicit/explicit social and health consequences" This post carries a similar theme to many before it: tech worker(who maybe or maybe not drank in a work-context in the past) gets "woke" about it and decrees that it's bad. The line I quoted from your recent comment alludes to what I think is what most of these articles are truly railing against: the implicit, unstated social hierarchies that are created in a given workplace, and the advantages they offer to their members in terms of choice project assignment, progression, recognition, and overall career satisfaction. Guess what? Remove drinking from the workplace, and the exact same thing will happen anyways. It may not form around drinking. Or, in all likelihood, it still will, just unofficially after-hours, which is likely to be even more exclusionary, because there will be no impetuous for forced inclusion. We as a species have been building complex social hierarchies for most of our history. That will always select for individuals who are more "social" versus ones who are not.