InternetPerson

That's a good way to use it. Like every technological evolution it comes with risks and downsides. But if you are aware of that and know how to use it, it can be a useful tool.
And as always, it only gets better over time. One day we will probably rely more heavily on such AI tools, so it's a good idea to adapt quickly.

Moderate drinking is not a problem.

From a health perspective, it certainly is.
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.

And it does assist with socializing

Which is a cultural thing. If people grow up seeing how alcohol is a social catalysator, they don't learn that it's perfectly possible to socialize without alcohol.

which seems like it would be beneficial for most people on here.

Idk, if that comes from a well-meant place, but it sounds kinda condescending.

The idea that people here are afraid of/resistant to drinking, yet will use cannabis and other materials seems very strange.

There are not just two kinds of people. From my experience those, who use cannabis or other drugs, are inclined towards alcohol use as well.

After reading through several of their comments and having engaged in a discussion with them myself, I get the impression that they don't care about respectful and civilised discussions and I think it's possible they are trolling. As they also resort to throwing insults around, evading questions and not really showing interest in conducting a line of arguments, it's probably best to disengage.

Critical thinking courses would indeed be very great to have.

Mere factual knowledge transfer is not effective in forming mature and responsible minds if critical thinking is not a focus of education as well.

What is "dumb"? What is "intelligence"?

I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.

You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn't educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.

You don't need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).

Sometimes a common error, as people just have a rather ordinary interpretation on the meaning of the word "theory" and sometimes it's an intentional attempt of discrediting.

Words can mean different things in different contexts. A scientific theory is not the same as the general or ordinary every-day meaning of "theory".

Classic example and mistake by followers of creationist religions: "evolution is just a theory".

Well, what if I told you, that, for example, our modern electronic means of communication are part of the wide field of "information theory"?

See above.

Until I see something which resembles a civilised and respectful response, showing an interest in continuing a discussion about the initial topic, I will no longer engage with you.

We seem to have reached a point where our conversation is no longer productive. As I value respectful and constructive dialogue, continuing appears no longer beneficial. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I hope we can engage more positively in the future, so let me know if you feel interested at some point in the future. Take care.

No, did I make the impression?

I am just trying to understand you and have a civilised discussion with you.

where people with conservative-minded views act like words were discovered in a fucking meteor crater

Hahaha, I love that part. :D

That took a very uncivilised turn.

Why are you so angry?

I am absolutely with you on that one.

But I think it's tied to how we do business and less a problem which is very specific to the movie industry. Or in other words: it's our fucked up capitalism in action again.

The workhorses of such shows get almost neglected while the shiny poster people and producers get most of the share.

And that's basically everywhere the case. CEOs, managers, superiors are making insanely more money than those who are contributing a lot of work. It's an unfair system which is holding the movie industry tightly in its grip as well.