×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Time's Person of the Year Is "The Protester"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the you're-all-individuals! dept.

Government 543

Hugh Pickens writes "Time's editor Rick Stengel announced on The Today Show that 'The Protester' is Time Magazine's Person of the Year: From the Arab Spring to Athens, from Occupy Wall Street to Moscow. 'For capturing and highlighting a global sense of restless promise, for upending governments and conventional wisdom, for combining the oldest of techniques with the newest of technologies to shine a light on human dignity and, finally, for steering the planet on a more democratic though sometimes more dangerous path for the 21st century.' The initial gut reaction on Twitter seems to be one of derision, as Time has gone with a faceless human mass instead of picking a single person like Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi who Time mentions in the story and is widely acknowledged as the person who set off the 'Arab Spring.' In 2006, Time chose "You" with a mirrored cover to much disappointment, picked the personal computer as 'Machine of the Year' and Earth as 'Planet of the Year,' proving 'that it should probably just be "Story of the Year" if they aren't going to acknowledge an actual person,' writes Dashiell Bennett. 'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

543 comments

I am the 1% (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374150)

Who make first post

Re:I am the 1% (1, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374260)

I, for one, found this first post hilarious. An on-topic first post is a rarity and should be rewarded. When you think about it, first posts do represent roughly 1% (give or take) of all posts and this tied in well with the topic. I gave extra points for brevity as it is the soul of wit.

What about the Tea Party Movement? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374172)

Or are not all protesters created equal?

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (3, Informative)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374250)

All of the tea party protests were back in 2009 [wikipedia.org] and 2010 [wikipedia.org].

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374540)

Yes, but Time never mentioned them in those years.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0, Troll)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374802)

Because TIME is liberal hippie magazine as far as mainstream publications go. I can site plenty of examples from Global Warming to Obama. No other US president can claim that much front cover status. Not a single one!

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374266)

Person of the Year

That wasnt in 2011. Nice try though.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0, Flamebait)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374632)

Not really. There's a distinction between rational protesting for and irrational protesting against. 2011 has seen a lot of rational, constructive protesting. The Tea Party was all about irrational, destructive rabble-rousing.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (3, Insightful)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374880)

Did you typo that? Seems completely backwards. One group is for smaller, less intrusive government, period. Another group want someone else to pay thier student loans, free healthcare, not willing to start at the bottom and work thier way up. Generally want somone else to support them. Probably recieved "participation trophies" at sporting events where scores are not recorded. One group booked/paid for venues. They actually applied for, and recieved permits. The areas they used were cleaned and maintained aftewards. The other group had rapes, death toll, clashes will police officers, hundreds, perhaps thousand of arrest. Significant drug usage, seriously dangerous sanitary conditions, outbreaks of disease and illegally occupying private property (including bolt cutting thier way into houses/churches/parkinglots and disrupting business. Causing several million dollars in damage and police overtime. All that time asking for corperate sponsership. Notice I didnt say which group was which.. I'll let you folks decide. Can help me out though, you said destructive.. Can't remember, which group was throwing malatov cocktails at police?

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1, Flamebait)

chrissandvick (844662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374936)

You're joking right? How about you compare the crime blotters for the two movements. How batcrap crazy do you have to be to see the nihilistic occupiers who violated individual rights, living in filth, committing murder, robbery, rape, assault and call that rational and constructive?

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0, Troll)

RicardoGCE (1173519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374272)

The Tea Party has been co-opted into Fox News' astroturfing arm.

Occupy hasn't been co-opted? (5, Insightful)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374484)

The Tea Party has been co-opted into Fox News' astroturfing arm.

No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives. For example union support and funding leading to a morphing of banning donation by organization to banning donations by corporations. Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees. Union and corporate interests should be represented through their members and employees, not through the union leadership and corporate CEOs with the political connections and big checkbooks.

Plus there is the whole problem of the real Occupy movement voice being crowded out by the fringe far left, the campers, much as the real Tea Party voice was drowned out by the fringe far right. The real voices just are not as interesting to TV as the fringe.

Re:Occupy hasn't been co-opted? (2)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374862)

Seems like one of the largest unions, that of the Police, are far from siding with OWS;

Of course, the whole point, of being anti-corporate and anti-corruption of Capitalism, is one that goes against the core fiber of both the Democrats and the GOP. So it is quite silly to equate the OWS with the DNC in the same way as the Tea Party was/is essentially just a fringe classification of the actual GOP base.

Re:Occupy hasn't been co-opted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374866)

For example union support

Like shutting down dem union ports! Fight the system!

LOL.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374636)

Occupy was wholly owned and operated by the "protest" movement formerly known as ACORN and the Democratic Party right from the start.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374674)

Deluded much?

Occupy a creation of Adbusters media organization (5, Interesting)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374868)

Deluded much?

No, just misinformed. While Occupy may have been co-opted by the Democratic Party, ACORN and related groups who are desperate for a tea party organization of their own, Occupy is a creation of the Canadian media organization Adbusters who is related to the former.

"The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment[1] organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Characterized by some as anti-capitalist or opposed to capitalism,[3] it publishes the reader-supported, advertising-free Adbusters, an activist magazine with an international circulation of 120,000[4] devoted to challenging consumerism ... Adbusters has launched numerous international campaigns, including Buy Nothing Day, TV Turnoff Week and Occupy Wall Street, and is known for their "subvertisements" that spoof popular advertisements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters [wikipedia.org]

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374888)

Don't forget George SOROS and Fartbama Obongo and whatever other insane delusional justifications and allegiances you need to make sense of anything non-regressive.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1)

pottymouth (61296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374808)

Ahahahahahahaha... Man, you're a moron aren't you! I guess you never watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, read Time or the NYTs or LA Times or the Chicago Trib... Yeah, it's all Fox News fault... Man, can you walk and talk at the same time?

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (4, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374276)

I would assume Tea Partiers are protesters and thus included in Time's lame cop-out. There are definitely some cases where it appears the tea party was treated like second class protesters, but i don't think this slashdot summary is one of them.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374324)

They definitely seem to have been cruelly ignored by the riot police of America...

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (-1, Flamebait)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374722)

That's because they all own and carry guns.

The police wouldn't be casually messing with the Occupy protesters if they were all armed to the teeth, and ready to start firing at a moment's notice. Unfortunately, most of the Occupy people are rational individuals.

For bullies, it's not about the rules. It's about what they can get away with.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (3, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374860)

Your post was one of the dumbest things I've read on Slashdot in a while. This is the single worst (best?) example of stupid guns-fix-everything arguments I have ever heard.

In this case, instead of claiming that arming everyone would prevent people from being victims of crime, you actually claim that they would prevent police (paramilitary force as of 2011) from abusing people? When it comes to cops, bringing guns into the mixture only serves to guarantee that they will use lethal force without hesitation.

Tea Party protests avoided police intervention because their cause aligns with the interests of the powerful. Period.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374918)

Note where the Occupy protests occurred. The vast majority occurred in "may-issue" states or "no-issue" counties in large "may-issue" states whereas the vast majority of Tea Party protests occurred in "shall-issue" states.

Rationalism views government as one's provider whereas irrationalism views oneself as one's provider. Typical suck-up to filthy smelly beardrd Marxist college professors and/or the price one pays for having plaques on the walls.

==//==

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374734)

They definitely seem to have been cruelly ignored by the riot police of America...

That's what happens when you show up, wave signs, yell and shout, give speeches ... and go home when the park closes.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374806)

That's what happens when you show up, wave signs, yell and shout, give speeches ... and go home when the park closes. ...leaving it cleaner than when you arrived.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374900)

Of course, not being a thorn in the side of people "Who Own You And You Should Shut Up And Take It, Stupid Unworthy Prole" was also a good benefit.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0, Flamebait)

lambent (234167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374294)

The Tea Party isn't actually protesting anything. They seem to be desperately trying to cling to the status quo in which they've found themselves to be so comfortable.

"Health care for me, not for anyone else"

"No new taxes ... for me"

etc, etc.

See the difference? They're trying to preserve their own position, not trying to actively change things. So, no, they're not protestors.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374450)

Funny, this is exactly the type of pompous pinhead slashdot response I was expecting to see.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (5, Funny)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374542)

Funny, this is exactly the type of pompous pinhead slashdot response I was expecting to see.

Nice, a self-referential response.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374612)

Funny, this is exactly the type of pompous pinhead slashdot response I was expecting to see.

Nice, a self-referential response.

OH yeah?!?! Well, same to you!!!

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374670)

Unlikely. Those Tea Partiers who post here as ACs look at the words but don't actually SEE anything at all, and "expecting" requires the notion of a hypothesis and prediction -- a methodology that flies firmly in the face of all that the Tea Party stands for.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374836)

Hypothesis: you are a jerk
Prediction: you will have posted on Slashdot with a hackneyed "the right hates science" one-off flame, void of actual content.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (4, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374468)

I don't see what's so "not-protest" about opposing what another entity has expressly stated a desire to do. Consider SOPA, for example: it has not actually been enacted, but some elements are actively trying to do so, and people protest against that. What makes the Tea Party different, other than that you disagree with a caricature of their position that you have projected onto them?

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374516)

you act like the ows was actually protesting something. In fact, they turned out to be nothing more than a bunch of priveledged american cry babies.

and the 99% mantra- complete bullshit.

extrapolate the "protesters" with the rest of the worlds population and they are in fact part of the 1%.

yes i said it. by virtue of being born in america you are the 1 fucking percent you dumb ass.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374714)

Funny, I thought America was ranking outside the top 10 nations on every metric going (happiness, health, prosperity, employment, lack of corruption, education, etc) -- well, with the exception of ego. America is joint first with France, Germany and several third-world dictators on Ego.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374824)

oh - so you are protesting happiness. poor baby.

well, telling you to fuck off makes me happy so our ranking just went up a notch. so fuck off

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374662)

Well, that is a pretty biased and inaccurate portrayal of the T par T. They were protesting large government and government excess. They managed to elect a number of people who have done their best to lower spending and avoid taxes, with moderate levels of success. They wanted to throw a spanner in the works of the bloated government in a visible way.

I say it was a partially successful protest, given their stated goals.

Your error was that you interpreted their goals, and phrased your opinion of their goals in a way that makes them look bad. In much the same way that the anti-occupy crowd calls the occupiers socialist extremists.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374894)

Well, that's kinda the whole point of conservatism, isn't it? Keep stuff the way it is, or roll it back to how it "used to be." Except people's ideas of how things used to be tend not to have much relation to actual history.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374308)

What about the Tea Party movement? They weren't big protesters this year. People/press have been drawing similarities between OWS and Tea Party, and they're even mentioning things that OWS should do to mimic the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is being recognized, so don't feel left out.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (5, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374344)

This selection was more for the Arab Spring protests than the Occupy protests. I think it's a sensible choice.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (1, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374488)

They're talking about /protestors/, not astroturf.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374538)

I imagine you are just trolling but just to be clear: the Tea Party is NOT a legitimate movement. Sitting around reading talking points prepared by and food donated by rightwing thinktanks is not a movement.

I can disagree with my conservative counterparts and hope to have a civil debate in which we find some compromise all parties can be happy with. You can't debate with the Tea Party because they're just angry about some list that Limbaugh prattled off and they didn't understand. But they know enough to be angry and that anyone attempting to discuss the issues with them is out to steal their precious gold bullion.

I went to the Occupy camp here in St. Louis several times. As others have mentioned Occupy is still in its infancy but I can at least attest that many people were working to find their own answers to what are impressively complex questions. Sure there were plenty of homeless people and hippies as well. But their presence doesn't somehow detract from the legitimate points raised about the absurd disparities of wealth in our society.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374616)

Yes, because a bunch of privileged idiots whining about paying tax because they're all right and are fine with poor people having no healthcare is exactly the same as a genuinely oppressed mass of people across a large global region taking up arms to overthrow their dictatorships.

The tea party is an astroturf movement, not a protest. You might as well say "What about the protests that some people prefer Pepsi to Coke?".

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (3, Insightful)

JustinKSU (517405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374724)

Or are not all protesters created equal?

No. We are not created equal. We do however deserve equal rights. Some would even argue equal opportunity.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (0, Troll)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374756)

No, they're not.

A protest that needs Fox New's Glenn Beck to organize and the Koch brothers to fund in order to get off the ground really isn't the same as a bunch of folks getting so upset about the status quo that they take to the streets.

See also, astroturfing vs grassroots.

Not a Person (3, Interesting)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374176)

Maybe the important thing is that a idea is the driver for change, no just an individual.

It is much harder for the daily news media to sell an idea than it is sell an individual being the center of everything.

Re:Not a Person (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374406)

It is much harder for the daily news media to sell an idea than it is sell an individual being the center of everything.

That's what's so interesting about the recent wave of protests themselves, they're so leaderless - not only the protests, but the movements themselves. Where's the strongman (or even an anti-strongman like Ghandi)? Is this because technology has reduced the need for a single mouthpiece? Is it because everybody is discontented but doesn't what to do about it, so every specific proposal sounds bad?

Re:Not a Person (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374666)

" Is it because everybody is discontented but doesn't what to do about it,"

This. If you look at these protesters for the 99%, they don't even really all agree on their goals.

Re:Not a Person (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374738)

The Occupy movement is united in the belief that the distribution of wealth is too skewed towards the top. Beyond that (including how to fix the problem), I agree. But it's not just them. Look at Egypt, they toppled their govt, but there is no apparent replacement. Same with Libya. There is no George Washington apparent. I truly hope they come out of this better than they went in.

Re:Not a Person (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374812)

That, in itself, gives the lie to the notion that individuals are the be-all and end-all of civilization. These protests are cohesive, identifiable entities, but they are NOT run by individuals, guided by individuals or presented by individuals. Try to deconstruct them to individuals and you find nothing. Yet the protests exist, they do actually have a function and they have a definite goal -- even though not a single individual within them can tell you what that goal actually is. The individual in these protests is a cell in a body greater than the individual and just like the cells in the human body, the cell is not the guide, the presenter or the decider.

Re:Not a Person (2)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374886)

That's what's so interesting about the recent wave of protests themselves, they're so leaderless - not only the protests, but the movements themselves.

I think it's a reaction to the normal police method to distrupt protests by going after the leaders.

If you have a single point of failure in the form of a small core group who are organising (not necessarily the leaders of an event) the police can come along and arrest that core, the entire event fails, even if there are still plenty of people who feel strongly enough about the issue and it takes too long to draw up more plans with any secondary group of leaders who might step up after the first set are removed from the group.

It also presents a much strong front against disruption in general by the police because there are no 'high value' arrest targets, the only way to stop it is mass arrest/evictions and that never looks good on the news report.

Occupying an area is about as much as you can do without more significant organisation and planning.

I think leaderless protest got it's roots in Critical Mass cycle events (at least that was the first time I saw leaderless protest in effective action here in the UK).

They Didn't Choose 'No One' (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374234)

'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'

Aside from the obvious one percent that didn't protest, there's another element of society that I happen to belong to. I'm not the 1% but I have a job. As such I stood by with at most sympathy and some odd feelings of survivor's guilt as I saw protests unfold in cities around my country. Yet I still had deadlines to make at work. So I'm not Time's Person of the Year but the protesters are because I sat here and sipped Lapsang Souchong tea while they made headlines. And that isn't no one, I think that's actually a very select group of people that were there, were non-violent and had a message. Other people that used the opportunities to loot or arson probably aren't proud enough to say it but Time Magazine has definitely selected a small set of people from around the world to be the Person of the Year. And I disagree that it was a bad choice and that it somehow represents 'no one.'

Sort of off-topic but every time I hear about protesting, this video pops into my head [youtube.com]. I will opine that in this video you will see what aspects you want to see about protesting. But I think that it encapsulates a lot about protests -- even from the comparatively non-violent protests of G20 last year in Toronto. From the pacifying elements of society to the occasional brutality involved from either side, this video is oddly satisfying for me.

Re:They Didn't Choose 'No One' (0)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374424)

I'd agree with you except for the part about having a message. I still can't figure out what they were protesting other than the fact that some people have a shitload more money than other people. As for those rich people getting their money in ethically challenged ways... well that's not particularly new, nor is it ever going to change.

I wish they actually had some conception of what they want other than, what they don't want. I guess you have to start somewhere, but movements that don't have specific goals are ripe for other people to either ignore or worse to co-opt into their own scheme to gain power "to help The People".

Re:They Didn't Choose 'No One' (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374464)

Their presence *is* their message.

Re:They Didn't Choose 'No One' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374646)

"Their presence *is* their message."

WTF does that mean? I'm sorry, but I forgot to take 400 level philosophy classes in school.

Re:They Didn't Choose 'No One' (1, Interesting)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374694)

Their presence *is* their message.

Yes, but the campers aren't delivering the message you were hoping for. Their presence is often a burden on the 99% (small business, workers, commuters, people/families who use parks, taxpayers who have to pick up the cleanup bill, etc) and irrelevant to the 1%.

Re:They Didn't Choose 'No One' (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374760)

Given how angry wealthy people and politicians seem to be about them, and how ambivalent most other people I know are, that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

The whining about cleanup/policing bill is particularly unconvincing. Most cities spend more money policing and cleaning up after their local NFL team's fans (and that's not even counting the millions in subsidies for the stadium). If we want to save money on policing and cleanup, there are a lot more obvious places to start than some people in a park.

Economic Justice (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374638)

I'd agree with you except for the part about having a message.

What I garnered from the more cognizant participants was they wanted one thing: economic justice.

I still can't figure out what they were protesting other than the fact that some people have a shitload more money than other people. As for those rich people getting their money in ethically challenged ways...

Yeah, so I think the real upsetting aspect of "some people have a shitload more money than other people" is how that came to be. I mean, just watching the Daily Show I see it all the time like my hard working father is now jobless and has to drive across three states to work and lives out of an RV away from his wife and home while the fed hands out $13 billion in just free cash to banks [bloomberg.com]? Are you serious? That's not economic justice! Our government bought up tons of shitty toxic assets from dumbshit investors to 'save' them yet no one tried to 'save' the jobs of the working class by just dumping billions of dollars into the rest of America. And when are those investments sold back to the original investors who made the stupid mistake to buy them? When do those people that made imprudent investment decisions get their comeuppance? Or is it only people that just tried to hold on to their jobs that have to pay for that fuck up?

well that's not particularly new, nor is it ever going to change.

You know I think people are okay when you can present them some convincing argument why the 1% deserve the Lion's share of the wealth. But when you paint them as bitching hippies who don't know what they want, you are really part of the problem. I don't want corporations to have more rights than individuals. Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act [wikipedia.org] to regulate speculation and stop corporations from internationally shifting funds in order to avoid paying the same damn income taxes I pay!

To just say "Aw, the 1% are just harder workers than you and deserve these rewards" is more ignorant than the protesters who don't know what they want.

Re:They Didn't Choose 'No One' (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374710)

I'd agree with you except for the part about having a message. I still can't figure out what they were protesting other than the fact that some people have a shitload more money than other people. As for those rich people getting their money in ethically challenged ways... well that's not particularly new, nor is it ever going to change.

I wish they actually had some conception of what they want other than, what they don't want. I guess you have to start somewhere, but movements that don't have specific goals are ripe for other people to either ignore or worse to co-opt into their own scheme to gain power "to help The People".

It took them a while (probably relating to them catching on that the media wasn't understanding them at all), but I think they finally stabilized on protesting the "socialized risk, privatized profit" sort of thing that modern businesses were getting away with (redundant emphasis on think ). That is, the bits where the banks that committed blatant fraud but whose managers got off with a slap on the wrist at worst, massive bailout loans at best, etc, etc.

I mean, that's a decent thing to protest and all, but it's clear these kids don't understand the concept of "you never get a second chance to make a first impression". Maybe if they got their intent clear first off rather than assuming that everyone just intrinsically KNEW what they meant, things might be different, but they led with a muddy, contradictory message, and that's what everyone's going to remember about them. They've got a much harder road ahead of them if they hope to change anything.

Drama much? (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374934)

Jeeze, was being Person of the Year once already just not good enough?

Next thing you know, everyone's going to be demanding Person of the Century and then cats will live with dogs and the whole system will collapse!

The POTY has become pretty lame (4, Insightful)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374282)

When they chose the president, a famous person, non-entity, etc, it's just lame. Last year was Mark Zuckerburg. That was a possible pick since Facebook has changes much of what we do online.

But when they chose "you" and "the protestor", I feel like they just had a dart board and just saw what stuck.

Story of the Year is probably a much accurate title, but won't sell as many mags or get as many people talking about it.

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374402)

I know, right?

I think we all know who is to blame here. Moot.
He caused all this. He created those monsters that spawned another protesting rebel generation.

DAMNED HIPPIES, WE WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN AGAIN.

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374498)

Facebook has changed NOTHING on what most of us do online. They're simply this decade's Geocities. Just because the media keeps mentioning them doesn't mean everyone uses them.

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (2)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374944)

>They're simply this decade's Geocities.

OH SNAP, that is the harshest thing I've ever heard about Facebook.

That was low, man, real low.

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374950)

This decades AOL.

They serve a purpose. Raising the signal to noise ratio in the rest of the net.

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374648)

The truth is they wanted it to be Obama, but knew that would be transparently partisan and even more ludicrous than what they ended up with.

I wonder if they're including the Occupy people who raped and assaulted others? Or the Arab Spring people who are fanatical members of the Muslim Brotherhood and who will make their country much worse now that they are in power? Or maybe the whiny kids at schools who are upset that their parents pay a lot of money for them to get degrees in subjects no one is hiring for?

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374846)

The MB is a totally secular, rationalist-you-betcha organization. I heard it on Slashdot.

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374840)

It's never really been much different, though. For the most part, a "person of the year" has always been shorthand for a larger group of people, their organizations, etc., who did some noteworthy thing that year. Only a small handful have been for what you might call truly individual accomplishments.

For example, the dual award to Bill Clinton and Kenn Starr in 1998 was basically "the Clinton impeachment saga". The 1999 award to Jeff Bezos was a stand-in for "the rise of e-commerce". The 1979 award to Ayatollah Khomeini was a stand-in for "the Iranian revolution". In 1947 to George Marshall, a stand-in for the Marshall Plan (which was hardly his single-handed doing). Etc.

Re:The POTY has become pretty lame (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374850)

I forget -- is Time's PotY the one that's supposed to be "cursed"? And, if so, is there any chance Wall Street paid Time for the feature, hoping to use the curse as a weapon of mass destruction?

Anonymous Coward for Person of the Year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374284)

omg, 1st pick!!

This is an outrage! (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374286)

The time mag editors are a bunch of wozzies. Instead of selecting the most deserving Superstar Rajnikant as the person of the year, they have gone for some faceless masked angry young man.

I am going to protest. Big time. Occupy Time Mag. yeah, yeah.

Now where do I collect the brownie points for being the person of the year?

To borrow from Mitch Hedberg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374346)

I am against this, but don't know how to show it.

i am the protester! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374360)

Okay guys, I'm here. Thanks a lot-- in this recognition, my spirit is truly embiggened.

It could have been worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374372)

... they could have picked Steve Jobs.

Oh come on, you know you were thinking it!

TGINS (3, Insightful)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374412)

Thank God It's Not Steve Jobs.

And although the Occupy people are not as hardcore as the Arab Spring guys, it's good that they didn't restrict it to one movement or country since there seems to be new protests in Russia and China...

Re:TGINS (5, Interesting)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374456)

Although on second thought, "Anonymous" would have been a good choice as well.

Not just the hacker group or 4channers, but all people acting anonymously, like whistleblowers and protesters. Would have been an counterpoint to Zuckerberg.

Finally! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374470)

It's about time someone acknowledged the hard work we professional QA people do. Because let me tell you, neither the developers nor the end users care one lick about the time we spend endlessly searching for corner cases and filling in bug reports.
It's not easy being a professional tester, but it's an important job nonetheless. Thank you Time, for acknowledging that.

Who is Dashiell Bennett?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374490)

Who the heck is Dashiell Bennett and why should I care what he/she thinks about Time's choice of "Person of The Year"??

ok... quick check on Twitter ... he is a "blogger" with 999 twitter followers ... ok.

Ridiculous (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374630)

Are they seriously lumping together the Occupy protesters with the rest of the protesters around the world laying their lives on the line to overthrow ruthless dictators? Really!?

my suggestion was ignored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374650)


#include "stdio.h"

int main( int argc, char** argv )
{
    int i=0;
rehab:
    printf( "NO -- \n" );
    if (i++ < 3)
        goto rehab;
    return 0;
}

Just as when they named Hitler man of the year... (1)

pottymouth (61296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374682)

They're equally stupid now as then. Sok though, Time is going under rapidly and I, for one, can't wait to see it disappear into the dustbin of history. To bad Time can't take the New York Times (i.e. Pravda west) with it.

Better double check who you pick (-1, Troll)

slapout (93640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374702)

Hey "Time", your "Person of the Year" has committed several rapes, started fires and stolen things. [freerepublic.com]

Re:Better double check who you pick (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374814)

Why does it matter? Person of the year is about the "person" who had the biggest impact, not necessarilly in a positive way. At the risk of Godwining this thread, Hitler was Time Man of the Year.

I protest! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374750)

I protest this appointment! If published, I will not serve!

Slashvertizement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38374838)

Slashvertizing for Time Mag now? Really why is here?

Anyway it should have been Dennis Ritchie

Time is weird? (2)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38374938)

They also made the PC or maybe it was the computer in general person of the year back in the 80's or 90's. Next up a terrorist is person of the year.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...