It depends on the process. Some processes literally make leather non-biodegradable. I’m not saying that faux leather is any better I’m just saying it’s more complicated than people realise. The leather industry could certainly use some improvement.

Yes because this community definitely doesn’t have a huge bias towards US culture.

It’s important not to chug a large amount all at once, it will take time for it to help with a dehydration headache either way and drinking it more spaced out a bit will prevent you from feeling sick. Having to pee more is just part of the price that comes with staying hydrated sadly, but I’d take that over the effects of dehydration.

Processed leather generally isn’t biodegradable.

Try having something to drink. I often find that a headache when I’m tired is often caused or at least made worse by dehydration.

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 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.

I mean as someone who is acearo myself and would like to see more relationships that reflect my own sometimes too, I’d love to see more cases of guys and girls just being friends and not getting shoved into a relationship automatically.

If the characters you’re talking about fro. SU are who I think they are, it’s also worth mentioning than there were also a lot of hints that one of those characters was acearo or at the very least served as an allegory for the acearo experience, which iirc was eventually confirmed.

It’s hard to think of off the top of my head because I admittedly have not gotten into a lot of the more popular examples, and a lot of them mix together, but a typical indication that someone is using the term wrong is if they try to point to evidence inside the show of how the couple should be canon because they have so much chemistry but the creators just won’t commit and make it canon. Those are typically just people wearing shipping goggles using the word as a way to say “I want them to be canon, therefore they SHOULD be canon, but they’re not, so it’s queerbaiting” even though the creators have never at any point indicated that the two characters will ever be in a relationship in advertising, interviews, previous drafts of the script, or otherwise, and at most the actors may have joked about how the ship is popular or mentioned that they personally enjoy it (which isn’t the same as using it in marketing or promotional material or teasing the possibility of it becoming canon). Queerbaiting can also take place even if a couple or sexuality DOES become canon if it’s halfassed or skimmed over or done poorly. Some famous examples of this are Shiro and his relationships from VLD and Destiel from Supernatural.

I absolutely find it annoying when romance is prioritized over friendship but this isn’t quite what queerbaiting is. At least, not on its own. Two same sex/gender people being very close and sharing a strong connection or even having some romantic undertones that never become “official” isn’t automatically queerbaiting. Those things can happen in real life without those relationships being or becoming romantic. Queerbaiting is when the writers/showrunners purposefully insert romantic subtext into the story and advertise it as if it will become canonically romantic with the primary intention of gaining more lgbt viewership, while never actually following through on those implied (or even occasionally explicitly stated) promises. The way it is presented and marketed is an important part of what makes it a problem, hence the “baiting” part. There’s nothing wrong with keeping a relationship ambiguous, or portraying a platonic relationship as being as deep, important, and emotionally intimate as romantic ones are typically portrayed without making them romantic, but if you try to manipulate or outright lie to viewers to make them think a relationship is going to be something it isn’t in order to gain their viewership and support, only to pull the rug out from under them, then that’s when it becomes sleazy, especially if you’re taking advantage of the fact that they’re a marginalized and under-represented group desperate to see more people like them in media.

I know this is just a joke comic so “it’s not that deep” but I see a lot of people online who misunderstand what queerbaiting is and accuse shows/series of queerbaiting unfairly so I thought I’d bring it up.

It helps to not turn a rather subjective field into a competition.

The head. Which is where hats go. The point of the dog wearing pants meme is that both options are still worn on the dog’s legs.

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.

That’s so lemon.

Fucking idiots, trying to act like the chatbot wasn’t their responsibility.

Hair as well.

YMMV on the mouse problem depending on the cat.

Oh there’s often plenty of reason.