• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time Magazine's Person Of The Year Is THE PROTESTER

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Time Person of the year for 2012 is "the protester."
It was just announced on The Today Show.
Kind of a snooze, but then, between The Arab spring, Occupy Wall Street, what's happening in Russia, and the various austerity pretests, it seems reasonable.

time-person-on-the-year.jpg


You can read the full TIME article here.


This is a good thing though I wish the article had given a little bit more detail. I'll try and find a better source. Thoughts? Comments?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/12/14/time-person-year.html

The magazine cited dissent across the Middle East that has spread to Europe and the United States and said these protesters are reshaping global politics.

Time said it is recognizing protesters because they are "redefining people power" around the world.

Last year, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg got the honour, which goes to the person the magazine believes most influenced events of the past year.
 
Last edited:
It is well deserved... People power bringing change to the world.....
 
The person of the year is a bunch of people from around the world . . . From the Arab Spring even?

So - any and all protest is nothing but good.

Wow, they're not being picky - are they? Sometimes it can be good but sometimes it can be disasterous and futile. Everyone needs to be careful that when they support a cause or admonish a reason they KNOW what's going on and what's happening becuase of it.
 
Sorry to add to a thread that will be merged eventually, but I don't think people understand what Person of the Year means. It doesn't mean the individual, group, or thing being acknowledged was good in the moral sense. Person of the Year only acknowledges that which was most newsworthy that year. Hitler was Person of the Year 1938, and Time's write up of Hitler published at the time is certainly not flattering:

Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth— or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938 - TIME
 
For the most part time magazines person of the year sucks...and who are they to decide that anyway...Ill choose my own person of the year
 
So - any and all protest is nothing but good.

That is never what the person of the year implies.

hitler-time-magazine-cover.jpg


1101800107_400.jpg


wputin120.jpg


Merely people who have changed the course of human events.

Which this time around the protesters have, for better or for worse, wherever they may be.

:peace:
 
For the most part time magazines person of the year sucks...and who are they to decide that anyway...Ill choose my own person of the year

Agree.
They tend to pick the most popular person/persons of the year, not necessarily the most significant to humanity.
I say their "person of the year" pick is quasi tabloid-ism.
 
Good choice by Time magazine.

who should they have picked instead, Kim Kardashian??

They could of picked the people from the litany of scientific discoveries or inventions that will actually effect humanity, in much more significant ways.

Instead they chose something just a bit better than Kim Kardashian.
 
They could of picked the people from the litany of scientific discoveries or inventions that will actually effect humanity, in much more significant ways.

It's a person of the year, sure, they may effect humanity in the future, but they didn't do it this year.
 
I think it goes much further than that, but don't think I mean popular = good.
Just popular in the news, whether good or bad.
Well, popularity is part of it. If it were popularity alone, then they would have picked Kim Kardashian or another celebrity. But popularity certainly needs to be a part of it since Time's person of the year seems to be partially about who had the most influence on people and who dominated discussion. People who aren't well known don't typically do either and certainly don't do the latter.
 
Well, popularity is part of it. If it were popularity alone, then they would have picked Kim Kardashian or another celebrity. But popularity certainly needs to be a part of it since Time's person of the year seems to be partially about who had the most influence on people and who dominated discussion. People who aren't well known don't typically do either and certainly don't do the latter.

Norman Borlaug is a good example the kinda defies that.
He developed a wheat variety that helped the world over, especially 3rd world nations, he did win a noble prize, but in general he was not well known.
His impact was much more significant, in real terms, than those of protesters.
 
Time Magazine: Picking it's way to irrelevancy.
 
Norman Borlaug is a good example the kinda defies that.
He developed a wheat variety that helped the world over, especially 3rd world nations, he did win a noble prize, but in general he was not well known.
His impact was much more significant, in real terms, than those of protesters.
Yeah, but my point is that Person of the Year is not synonymous with Most Important or Significant person of the year. There are plenty of lists that deal with lesser known people like Borlaug. My impression of Time's list is that it's supposed to be about who quite literally influenced more people and dominated discussion. The protests really did both more than anyone this year and not just in one place, but all over the world.
 
Yeah, but my point is that Person of the Year is not synonymous with Most Important or Significant person of the year. There are plenty of lists that deal with lesser known people like Borlaug. My impression of Time's list is that it's supposed to be about who quite literally influenced more people and dominated discussion. The protests really did both more than anyone this year and not just in one place, but all over the world.

I agree with the dominated discussion part, but not so much with the influenced people part.
 
putting the same guy on the cover of Time magazine, with three months, ignores the many more individuals and events that have taken place in our world during the year.

nevermind the fact that its just silly.

:lamo


So what month you get the cover dictates your status? then the award is a lie.
 
Back
Top Bottom