&quot;Silence breakers&quot; named as Time Person of the Year

next year "The Winner is.... Past Participles !!"

Reply 2

markovchain17

Original post by the bear

next year "The Winner is.... Past Participles !!"

Yup that's what I heard as well. It's only until 2020 when they actually get it right as Keith Chegwin is supposed to win apparently.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

fallen_acorns

you just know that they had a collective orgasm in the planning room when the first person suggested this...

an idea that's so perfect, you must be a cold-hearted ******* to oppose it.. not even just a single woman who spoke out, whose case could be disputed.. but rather the whole concept or movement of 'victims' speaking out... its genius. Take it to the extreme, next year the person of the year is 'good people'...

(I put victims in '' because some of them are, many are not victims yet, they are just women who are making allegations against men that have not been proven yet)

Reply 4

the bear

Chat Forum Helper, Entertainment Forum Helper

2019 "We are totally overwhelmed & thrilled, but in a non-oppressive way, that this year's winner is.... Emoting !!!"

Reply 5

AngryJellyfish

18

Next year! :shakecane:

Reply 6

Bored123456789

16

Original post by Notnek

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42254219

The award goes to a person, a group, an idea, or an object that "for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year".

Surely Donald Trump should have won it? They usually get it right but not this year in my opinion. Maybe this was part of the reason?

I agree!

>Person of the year
>Not a person

😂😂😂

Reply 7

I think it I'd have been fine with either Trump or The Silence Breakers winning it. Both had such a profound effect on the years events both across multiple fronts (Trump for obvious reasons, Silence Breakers hitting entertainment, politics, and breeding the #MeToo movement across social media). Definitely deserved winners.

Original post by Chaz254

I agree!

>Person of the year
>Not a person

😂😂😂

Original post by fallen_acorns

Take it to the extreme, next year the person of the year is 'good people'...

It's happened multiple times across the past few decades so it's not worth pulling up as a point of discussion. A quick look at past winners shows 'The Inheritor', 'The Middle American', and 'US Scientists' as a few examples. Heck in 1982 'The Computer' won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 8

Notnek

OP

Original post by MrDystopia

I think it I'd have been fine with either Trump or The Silence Breakers winning it. Both had such a profound effect on the years events both across multiple fronts (Trump for obvious reasons, Silence Breakers hitting entertainment, politics, and breeding the #MeToo movement across social media). Definitely deserved winners.

I just think with Trump being in the news literally every day, he has clearly had more influence, with the silence breakers in second place. Him winning it last year shouldn't have been a reason for him not to win it this year.

Reply 9

Original post by Notnek

I just think with Trump being in the news literally every day, he has clearly had more influence, with the silence breakers in second place. Him winning it last year shouldn't have been a reason for him not to win it this year.

I mean if we're talking direct influence and being in the news every day, every US President should win it every year (which I believe every President has done at some point or another) given stories are present each day of something they do.

Trump being Trump for 2017 is naturally a deviation from the norm and definitely more shocking, but 'influential'? I dunno, I think if we were to celebrate his influence it was done last year already, in galvanising a new support base of voters to lead him to the White House. From the way that wiki article puts it though, TIME has strayed away from winners who are that controversial. In 2001, one can argue Bin Laden should've been person of the year for his influence, but it was given to the Mayor of New York at the time for example. I guess the same can be thought of as justification for Trump not winning this year. For all his influence, barely anything has been positive, most negative, and almost all very controversial.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 10

markovchain17

"For the 2059 TIME Person of the year we decided to go with Michael Bublé for his final, posthumous Christmas album 'A Merry Christmas to the Avagacs' which was broadcasted directly to the threatening Avagacs alien race, ultimately serenading them and preventing them from destroying the Earth and saving mankind and all of Earthkind.

However, we made a late, late decision and we finally decided to go with - for the 42nd year in a row - Emojis! 😁😁👌😂😂"

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

Bored123456789

16

Original post by Notnek

I just think with Trump being in the news literally every day, he has clearly had more influence, with the silence breakers in second place. Him winning it last year shouldn't have been a reason for him not to win it this year.

Agree but it must be pointed out that he's in the news everyday because the media is hysterical over him and report every little thing he does and every little thing that may remotely be connected to Trump. They only do it for ratings. He calls them Fake News so they continue to constantly clog up their news with Trump stuff.

Reply 12

Notnek

OP

Original post by MrDystopia

From the way that wiki article puts it though, TIME has strayed away from winners who are that controversial. In 2001 for example, one can argue Bin Laden should've been person of the year for his influence, but it was given to the Mayor of New York at the time for example. I guess the same can be thought of as justification for Trump not winning this year. For all his influence, barely anything has been positive, most negative, and almost all very controversial.

I forgot about that. Obviously Bin Laden / the terrorists had the most influence on 2001.

I don't see why controversial figures can't win it. People are usually shocked when they see that Hitler won it and I understand that it's strange to associate an award with something bad but TIME clearly state what the award is for.

Reply 13

Original post by Notnek

I forgot about that. Obviously Bin Laden / the terrorists had the most influence on 2001.

I don't see why controversial figures can't win it. People are usually shocked when they see that Hitler won it and I understand that it's strange to associate an award with something bad but TIME clearly state what the award is for.

For sure, and I agree, I think I just disagree that Trump's influence has been as pronounced as it was last year. I do think TIME has shifted away from the stance of allowing completely over the top controversial entities winning though.

Reply 14

fallen_acorns

Original post by MrDystopia

It's happened multiple times across the past few decades so it's not worth pulling up as a point of discussion. A quick look at past winners shows 'The Inheritor', 'The Middle American', and 'US Scientists' as a few examples. Heck in 1982 'The Computer' won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

Something stupid happening before, does not mean you can't call it stupid when it happens again.

Reply 15

Original post by fallen_acorns

Something stupid happening before, does not mean you can't call it stupid when it happens again.

True, but that's the extent of the grumbling which doesn't add much to the discussion :tongue:

Reply 16

Gwilym101

17

I wouldn't have though Trump would deserve to win, he hasn't been particularly influential he's just been loud and whining.

Reply 17

Pretty Flako

9

Trump is not influential. He's nothing more than a puppet who's been told everything he must do. The real power is under the republicans surrounding him.

Reply 18

SMEGGGY

Trumper said it was him :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 19

Notnek

OP