4 ms·

Only me who thinks this is pretty lame? The whole point of having "Person of the year" is for it to be a person. This is just stupid.

adjkant 9y ago
History says no, TIME does not think it's the point. As noted, this is also one article published by a single magazine.
- staticelf 9y ago
  Then what do they think is the point? I seriously have a hard time to understand. Ok if it is a small group of people that actually did something great but having stuff like "The american woman" or "The computer" isn't very interesting in my opinion. I understand that other people feel otherwise, but I would rather read more deeply about a single person because I find that way more interesting. The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid.
  - adjkant 9y ago
    The distinction is arbitrary and appears to be generally used to highlight the most important things of the year through a person, group of persons, or event involving people, which is obviously quite wide. If you want a person of they year in-depth individual profile, you are welcome to look elsewhere, but that general type of thing is obviously important to many others and is true to what the series is. No flaw there. > The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid. I suspect your disapproval of the choice is motivating you to discredit the article series as meaningless, which is a flawed argument to take. Not to mention that many people have made apologies and confessions. If you think this is about "medial rage", you are missing the point. This is about progress on a huge cultural problem that has pretty much been in existence since the days of early men. This selection is highlighting the people who have helped drive that progress recently.
danso 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15861294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15861294
- staticelf 9y ago
  Doesn't make it less lame.
binaryblitz 9y ago
Really? You're gonna argue semantics?

adjkant 9y ago

History says no, TIME does not think it's the point. As noted, this is also one article published by a single magazine.

staticelf 9y ago
Then what do they think is the point? I seriously have a hard time to understand. Ok if it is a small group of people that actually did something great but having stuff like "The american woman" or "The computer" isn't very interesting in my opinion. I understand that other people feel otherwise, but I would rather read more deeply about a single person because I find that way more interesting. The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid.
- adjkant 9y ago
  The distinction is arbitrary and appears to be generally used to highlight the most important things of the year through a person, group of persons, or event involving people, which is obviously quite wide. If you want a person of they year in-depth individual profile, you are welcome to look elsewhere, but that general type of thing is obviously important to many others and is true to what the series is. No flaw there. > The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid. I suspect your disapproval of the choice is motivating you to discredit the article series as meaningless, which is a flawed argument to take. Not to mention that many people have made apologies and confessions. If you think this is about "medial rage", you are missing the point. This is about progress on a huge cultural problem that has pretty much been in existence since the days of early men. This selection is highlighting the people who have helped drive that progress recently.

danso 9y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15861294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15861294

staticelf 9y ago
Doesn't make it less lame.

binaryblitz 9y ago

Really? You're gonna argue semantics?