> Since the rise of individualism, everyone has a different definition of "fun"

I don't think this is anything new. Back one or two centuries ago there were clubs and societies for people having common interests, social classes and behaviors.

> A few days ago I organized a party for a few friends of mine, and even from organizational perspective it was a nightmare: this guy likes burgers while that guy is vegan. This guy wants to get wasted, that guy only smokes weed, while the other one needs to stay sober. This guy can come at 21:00 at earliest, while the other needs to leave at 22:00 at latest.

I think you overthink it. The one who organize is the one who decides. You define a place, people adapts or don't come. Simple as that.

In any group of friends or acquaintance, there are those that comes since the beginning, other who are always late, some who always leave early, some who are heavy smokers and spend all their time smoking outside, others who can't handle the smoke and stay inside and some who adapt and spend time in both area. Some people who always disappear for a while. In that group, some people barely spend time together. That is fine, you don't have to be the all of us together from start to finish.

As a guest I'm feeling less confortable when the host is organizing something specially for me: I'm coming to have time with you, probably talking. Eating, smoking or whatever is a nice plus if we happen to share the same interest and if we don't that's fine, I won't have a bad time if you didn't prepare my favorite meal. I'm not the birthday kid.

I understand some people fun is to organise for other folk's fun, that's a generous motivation. But sometimes just behaving/organizing the way you likes it yourself makes other more confortable. Just tell them what food you'll prepare, if smoking inside/window is allowed and at what time you'll be ready. If they're grown up they'll manage to have fun by themselves, they come to see you not for your food.

> Because in order to be inclusive, we boil down to the lowest common denominator.

I know bartenders who have a customer list that they never serve for various reasons. It’s easier to implement it in a neighbourhood level, as there’s an implied “we’re a part of the same group, so try to behave” understanding.

> Case in point: why work parties are so dry?

I get what you’re saying, but my work parties have been nothing but dry (and definitely, very far from dry) up until my current job. I just changed a few months ago though, and until I relocate, can’t really experience what they have to offer.

Agreed about the party hosting part though. It’s pretty tough to get some of my friend circles to do something together for the same reason. We can usually muster up for our big traditions though, which I think can be done in a local level too.

There's a very big range between "behave like a 10 year old school child on their first day at school" and "get absolutely plastered, and start sexually harassing your neighbours". And no, I'm not making things up, I've seen this happen, personally. If the latter is a 10, an establishment could kick anyone out above the level of 8. Get drunk, misbehave to a point, break a pint or two throughout a year, that's fine.

The problem is, you can't objectively measure the unacceptableness of particular behavior. You can't tell a guy "you see, our unacceptableness meter shows 8.1 unacceptableness units, while our limit is 8, so you're out". It's all relative to social dynamics of particular group. Learning and following those dynamics costs energy, and if I'm spending my energy on something, I want a return on my investment. That's why I don't hang out with random people, but rather with people whose views on social norms align with mine.