I mean, if you can find a way to harness it, it sounds like the perfect way to banish enemies to the shadow realm.

Stuff like this is part of why I dropped out of multimedia production in college, I only enjoy that stuff as a hobby for myself, doing it for other people is a creative nightmare lol

I agree, though I also think there’s a discussion to be had about society’s obsession with punishment over anything else, and how sometimes it’s okay to let go of the past and appreciate that someone has become a better person and is working to attone for that they did and do good things from that point onwards, which is overall better for the world as a whole than them being forced to suffer endlessly for their past actions for the sake of vindication or revenge. If you’re going to take the stance that someone can have a moral debt they must be forced to pay, then you have to likewise acknowledge that there must be a point at which it can be paid. If you try to claim that some things can never be made up for and thus some moral debts can never be repaid, then that only highlights the problem with that sort of reasoning. Because if someone takes a life then saves a life, and you claim that one is not enough to make up for the other, then you’re essentially treating life 1 as more valuable than life 2. And what if they take 100 lives but save 1000? Can human lives even be stacked up against each other like that to say which group has more “value” than the other? That’s the paradox of a moral debt, something can not simultaneously be priceless and yet also not hold enough value to balance the scale against itself at the same time.

In real life this can be complicated further because it can be hard to judge whether someone has truly learned from their mistakes and genuinely changed their ways, but in a fictional story you often get to see for sure that the character truly is sincere. So to tie that in to what you said, just because a viewer/reader is capable of accepting a character’s redemption in a fictional setting, where they are 100% certain that the former villain has had a change of heart and feels bad and will continue to do good things into the future, that doesn’t mean it’s a moral failing on the audience’s part. But it’s also worth noting that being willing to give someone a chance to improve themselves and grow as a person instead of demanding their eternal damnation and punishment isn’t a moral failing either even outside of fiction.

I mean if the villain’s redemption is well written then typically the guilt from their past actions is the punishment for said actions, and their current actions are largely focused on atonement and reparation. That sort of thing often makes them even more relatable though because while not everyone has killed another person, everyone in the world has hurt someone else at some point, maybe unintentionally, maybe unknowingly, maybe due to extenuating circumstances or their own trauma, or maybe because they were just a worse person at the time. Does that mean they are never allowed to be a better person and must eternally suffer for all the wrongs they’ve committed? Is it not better to encourage their goodness in the present than to forcibly drag them back to when they were bad over and over again for the sake of vindication? Does society really benefit from that sort of thing? And what if they end up saving more lives than they’ve taken? Something to think about.

Pretty sure it’s the fault of the scary awful side for being scary and awful.

That’s because “I’m sorry” is essentially short for “I feel sorrow”. What it means specifically can differ depending on the context. We have lots of examples of phrases that work like this, for example: if you end a relationship with someone you call it “breaking up” with them. If you pass through a tunnel during a phone call and can’t hear the other person very well or the call drops, they’re “breaking up”. That’s because something “breaking up” can refer to it falling apart or being severed. When you apologize, you feel sorrow over your own actions and/or the hurt they have caused. When you console someone grieving, you feel sorrow for their loss. This, like puns, is not in any way exclusive to the English language.

Hair as well.

Oh there’s often plenty of reason.

Once a day isn’t crazy if she doesn’t eat tons of sugar.

Probably not but that doesn’t mean we need even more dangerous and deadly sports to add to the pile.

I don’t look at other people as if they are or were me, I look at them as if they are their own people who may or may not be living their life differently from me.

They already did it’s called a blindfold.

I’m pretty sure there’s not a single person on the planet who expected them to be equally critical of both.

They do come to that conclusion all the time, but in some cases it’s impossible to know for sure. If they don’t know for sure then they’re not going to say it’s definitely for decoration only, but they’ll list it as an option, which they have done for this object.

Worm Jesus is about to be crucified.

Tbh I’ve only ever seen this trope happen on tv. In real life whenever I see women wearing the same outfit they’re like “omg we match!!”

Okay? Nobody said you had to care.

Those products all lump themselves together under the term “organic”, that’s the problem.

I did do my research. There’s no evidence of any health benefit from eating organic foods and the environmental benefit is relatively minor depending on the country and ultimately no more effective (often less effective) than other dietary lifestyle changes like vegetarianism or veganism or even just reducing the amount of meat you eat. Depending on how the word organic is used on the packaging it could mean the food contains anywhere from 50-90% “organic” products. The USDA rating only accounts for the standards of one country, not the whole world, not to mention even the USDA rating doesn’t exclude all fertilizers or all GMO products, but organic stuff is commonly described and marketed as being “pesticide and GMO free food”. “Organic” food is constantly marketed and viewed as being healthier despite there being no actual evidence supporting that. None of that contradicts what I said in my first comment. It is an arbitrary and abused term that doesn’t actually tell you anything about the food reliably. I’m not saying it’s completely meaningless entirely I’m just saying it has little meaning, certainly much less than most people believe, due to a lack of consistency, constant lies in marketing, and the low level of impact it has on the environment compared to other comparable dietary options. You also don’t even need to buy stuff labeled as organic in order to eat organic, since lots of organic foods aren’t labelled.

By all means I would love more strict wide-spread regulation and enforcement of the term “organic” based around maximizing its environmental impact, but at the moment it’s little more than a marketing tool for most companies.

It’s a heavily abused and arbitrary marketing term that doesn’t actually indicate anything about what the food is made of or how it’s made or grown. It also doesn’t indicate anything about how healthy the food is or how good it tastes. At most it’s slightly better for the environment in some areas with some brands when used properly, but even then regulations are too lax and inconsistent worldwide for it to be a trustworthy label.