TwiLyghtSansSparkles

Not bad, not bad, though you should probably know most people 'round here prefer to ship Lightwards with his hat.

OH! If you go to the moon, I can ship you with Luna, Princess of the Night! (Yes, she's a pony. An alicorn Princess, in fact.)

Unless that High Epic is as big a fan of Spam as the rest of Hawaii, refuses to let anyone eat anything else, and drowns anyone who dares break the monotony with toast.

The Financier approves of this ship.

Please. I have never once shipped a McMuffin. I have had Voidgaze and Big Al have dates where they ate McMuffins, but shipping someone with a sandwich is just silly. ....not saying I wouldn't do it. I just wanted you to know how silly it would be.

Houston first, but San Diego and Albuquerque (I believe) were also named as cities he destroyed.

Careful now, Illuminati. It's like you're asking to get shipped with someone.

We aren't sure yet, but a few ideas have been tossed around. Whatever happens, it will almost certainly involve ponies.

Besides, I could just ponify Charizard once I get home--or, if someone would be so kind as to provide me with another Pokemon, I could ship him.

That's the common consensus, yes, but having watched all three with some regularity, I'd say CNN is no more centrist than Fox. They're just a little less up-front with their biases than MSNBC. And I know I'm not completely objective--no one is. I find all three networks more exhausting than offensive, and part of what I find exhausting about CNN and Fox is the way they pretend to be balanced.

As someone with a younger brother who is also an older brother, believe me when I say that the line can be very thin indeed.

The last one was a few of MLP's main characters in human form.

Guys! I think I just found proof David Charleston is real! I was watching TV, and a commercial for…something came on. I don't remember what it was for, but here's what it said: David is real, and he got into marketing.

Yes.

Hypno added.

Huh. Could've sworn you watched the show. I was going to ask you how you found the 100th episode, but since you don't watch the show...why the heck not?

Funtimes is technically from Alaska, though she was in Seattle when she became an Epic. I had Koschei as being from Washington, though I was pretty vague on that, and I haven't even decided where Quota is from.

Call me squeamish, but I'd have to say Epic. Granted, I'm no expert on Steel Inquisitors, but thinking of all those spikes gives me the heebie-jeebies. Although becoming an Epic would definitely be traumatic (and dangerous), if I knew it was coming, I could lock myself inside a bank vault, or make sure it happened out in a field somewhere in rural Wyoming, to minimize the damage. Yeah, those poor cows would never be the same…but better some dead or traumatized cows than dead or traumatized people. Major Firefight spoilers: Would you rather eat nothing but Vorin women's food, or Idrian cuisine for the rest of your life?

Said Kobold moments before Steelheart caught on. Um….neither? Okay, okay, if I had to pick, I'd go with Obliteration. Yes, he's a mass-murdering psychopath, but I think that underneath Calamity's corruption, he really does want to seek and find the truth. There might—might—be a way to get through to him. Regalia only cares about being right, and gloating about being right. There is nothing edifying about a Bible study led by someone like that. Would you rather spend three hours listening to Kaladin sulk, or five hours listening to David's similes?

I definitely agree. Bill O'Reilly and Stephen Colbert provide commentary. It's not supposed to be news; it's analysis of the news. Their programs are the television equivalent of a regular opinion column in the newspaper. It's opinion, it's packaged as opinion, and it's presented as opinion. What happens with the major news networks, though, is that they allow opinion to shape the news. No one presents the news as-is anymore, if they ever did in the first place; I can't think of a single reporter who doesn't allow their personal opinions to leak through into their presentation of facts somehow. TV news isn't the only guilty party here; a few years back, my local newspaper ran a front-page story with the headline "Meddling Republicans Get a Dose of Their Own." That isn't a news headline. That is an opinion dressed up as a headline. I think opinion programs actually do contribute to the national discussion at large; the problem comes when reporters confuse opinions for facts and present them as such.

I'd give Shallan my boots. Sure, marching across the Shattered Plains barefoot would hurt, but I spent a lot of time barefoot growing up. I've even been barefoot in Arizona during its infamous 110-degree summers. I could find a way to handle it. Pre-Kaladin Bridge Four might break me. Would you rather dis Steelheart's cape to his face, or lick peanut butter off a catacomber's foot?

WARNING: RAMBLE AHEAD Documentaries are a tricky area, I think. It's easy to point to a documentary and say "That's biased, it's so biased," but nonfiction books tend to get more of a pass from the public. I think part of the reason is that, in a documentary, the narrator's tone and expressions convey his or feelings on the subject, no matter how they try to disguise them; while in print, that bias is easier to conceal. Of course, bias is always noted by one who does not share the narrator or writer's feelings on a subject. Here in the States, we have a few major news networks, but the two most people know best are CNN and Fox. Fox gets a bad reputation for being biased. "Fair and Balanced," is their motto, but many Americans on the internet like to add "But only if you're Republican." And really, Fox is biased toward the Republican/conservative side. Most of their anchors and all of their analysts are conservative. Anchors and analysts alike invite liberal commentators on, but almost invariably wind up arguing with them on air for everyone to see. The news stories they select are those that benefit the Republican party—the Benghazi scandal, the current scandal with Hilary Clinton's emails, the IRS scandal, etc. CNN, on the other hand, is widely considered unbiased. I'm really not sure why. All of their anchors and analysts are liberal. I can count on one hand the number of times I remember seeing a conservative even invited on, and they were always hammered by those who invited them. One guest commentator, when talking about parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, smiled smugly and said "But it's like religion—you really can't reason with them." When Fox was running story after story on Benghazi and the IRS, CNN ran the same story about the Malaysian Flight 370 disappearance. I watched it—they ran the exact same footage with the exact same commentary four times in the same day. So why is CNN considered unbiased? For the same reason people who watch Fox consider it fair and balanced: Those who consider it fair share the network's bias. Facts and opinions are easy to confuse, and when your favorite news network happens to share your opinions, all of their opinions begin to look like facts. It happens on both sides of the ideological divide—liberals side with CNN, conservatives side with Fox, and neither side is going to admit their favorite network is just as biased as the network they loathe. Documentaries are subject to the same sort of logical fallacies on the part of the audience. If the audience agrees with the documentary makers opinions, the documentary is more likely to be considered factually accurate by said audience. Even if the narrator's opinion is unconcealed—if you can hear the disgust in his voice as he speaks to someone with whom he disagrees—this audience is likely to accept it as justified. Again, this happens on both sides of the ideological spectrum. So where do books come in? I think reading all the books on a subject is considered more respectable than watching documentaries because it can be easier to filter out the bias. Plus, good books cite their sources, so a reader can go to those sources and see what is written there, and determine whether the facts were stretched in any way. This is far more difficult—if not impossible—with documentaries and TV news. While both of those mediums "cite" their sources by showing them onscreen, what is to stop an unscrupulous narrator from asking someone to impersonate a profession he dislikes and say things that will make the audience less sympathetic to the opposing viewpoint? If the only sources an author cites are articles they wrote, it's easy to tell that they have no primary sources and may be fabricating much of the evidence. Documentaries make this more difficult.

The more I think about that movie, the more research I realize they put into it. This article touches on a few things it covers, like long-term memory and apathy. I have a feeling Inside Out will be shown in more than one high school psychology course in years to come. (My sister graduated from a high school where her psych teacher had them watch Mean Girls and note all the psychological concepts.)

If we all shared the views of our worst characters, we probably would've killed each other already.