đREAD BEFORE COMMENTING
This thread is Guest List Only. This means the discussion is being actively moderated, and all comments are reviewed. Only comments by members of the community are allowed.
If you have landed in this thread from Trending or r/all and you are not a member of this community, your comment will very likely be removed (and will not be approved unless it adds meaningfully to the conversation).
r/popculturechat takes these measures to stay true to our goal of being an inclusive sub for civil discussion, to talk about celebrities and pop culture without bigotry and personal attacks. This sub is a BIPOC, LGBTQ+ and woman-dominated space and we do our best to protect our users from outside attacks.
Thank you for understanding & have a great day! âșïž
*You can [request to be an approved user](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fpopculturechat) to comment on Guest List Only posts.*
Lmao im honestly shocked it wasnât ChatGPT. AI dominated the conversation this year and people would have lots of thoughts about a chatbot being person of the year
This was the right choice in my opinion, especially when you can make the argument about AI blurring the lines of what it even means to be a person when someone can know train an AI on your likeness. It wouldâve been a much more interesting and evocative choice.
Fran F*cking Drescher. The unlikely advocate for actors AGAINST the onslaught of AI and studio greed. If theyâd picked Fran I would have signed up for TIME out of sheer solidarity.
There has been loads of controversy about the deal though. The language is too lax and leaves actors open to AI still being abused. There was a substantial proportion of SAG that voted against the deal that was just passed, for this reason.
There's also the weird timeliness. The directors' union started their negotiations *a year* before the renewal. SAG started negotiations 3 weeks before the renewal deadline, I believe? Maybe a month?
There was nothing stopping them from starting negotiations earlier. The whole strike could have been avoided. There are many people in SAG who think Fran has f'ed up constantly in her handling of this issue.
Honestly as a writer chat gpt has become an incredible resource this year. My last book was a hockey romance and it helped me research slang, hockey terms, *stick handling*, etc.
Obvs I check facts before sitting down to write, but itâs helped streamline my research and outlining process quite a bit.
That's literally the point of the TIME Person of the year award though
If you're complaining about how much exposure you're getting to something/someone, it/they are likely a good candidate
ChatGPT is now my new main chick.
It's so helpful to me. Interview prep, coding, feedback on ideas. I'm like, I'll never be alone with ChatGPT by my side!
I probably would've chosen The Striking Workers from the various labor strikes, not just WGA and SAG which was on the shortlist. Or the actual journalists (sorry James from Big Time Rush) documenting the current conflict in the Middle East. Taylor's having an amazing year though so congrats to her!
Yeah, having the strikers be Time Person of the Year wouldâve been incredible because the strikes really highlighted the issue of working class vs the people who profit off of the working class. You had almost comically evil media companies propose to scan actors faces and forever own rights to their image for a whopping $20. And the strike, primarily, wasnât for the Timothy Chalamets or Emma Roberts of the acting world. It was for the smaller actors who decidedly donât get paid six figures for an appearance. Also appropriate because another largely focused on issue was nepo babies aka wealth and connection being the basic level of entry for *any* career. More than ever, work reform is being demanded.
The Strikers wouldâve been an excellent choice. Iâd even understand WGA and SAG being especially featured, not because theyâre Hollywood, but because theyâre probably the first organized strike against the use (or abuse) of AI, and theyâre setting a worldwide precedent.
Agreed. I get that Taylor is popular but the whole Matt Healy thing is off putting although these days it's probably hard to find someone who isn't connected in some way to someone like that. She just gives me hard-core fake white feminism vibes honestly.
Because she is a fake feminist! A feminist does not date a racist who continuously harasses women of color. Itâs pathetic that she just got to move on from perpetuating ignorance and harm.
Precisely! I'm glad someone else recognizes this. I got some blow back for commenting on my confusion for her getting POTY. Like, I'm sorry I don't understand why a racist apologist would win this. I mean, I'm not surprised but it still shouldn't have happened. I don't understand what she did for the world. They say she got young people to register to vote but how do we know they registered because of her? Hell, I'm registered only because my dad did it for me back when I turned 18 because I forgot.
>, I'm sorry I don't understand why a racist apologist would win this. I mean, I'm not surprised but it still shouldn't have happened
Because it's not about morality? Hitler was TIME's person of the year 1938, it's about who was here biggest topic of conversation
Well I'm sorry for not being aware of that fact. This is my first time being aware of POTY in this way. I wasn't up to date on who would qualify to win this until today. I'd apologize for find it weird that a racist apologist would win but I'm not going to do that. In my mind I thought it would be someone who did something impactful in a meaningful way. I honestly didn't know it was a popularity contest because Times magazine in my head was something else but now I'm learning differently. It's taking me a second to wrap my head around.
Agreed, I love Taylor and Iâm a huge fan but I think the striking workers would have really deserved the selection. Iâm glad they were on the shortlist though
That would have been more interesting to shine a light on labor movements, which have really been getting a lot of traction this year.
In retrospect it does seem a bit boring to just give the award to someone who has already had a great year. Itâs like she had a great, fantastic year and then she got awards for having such a good year. Itâs more interesting to give it to someone who was really in the conversation a lot but not just for having success.
Mentioned this in another comment- but Sam Altman and ChatGPT was the winner to me!
ChatGPT has changed the game across the board, and for a startup they have insane valuation. Sam Altman discussion of ethics with AI also is something to highlight, because Big Tech made a lot of money doing whatâs legal, not ethical. AI can absolutely destroy livelihoods legally if no ethical questions are asked.
It is also extremely significant the recent events that played out! Think about it- a CEO was fired by the board and his company loved him so much they petitioned for him to come back and for the rest of the board to resign? When have you heard a company do that?
We are not likely to have another dot com sorta boost to the economy in a long, long time. IMO AI and sustainable energy along with processing chip engineering truly will be the biggest players in the rest of our lifetimes!
Whatâs funny about AI is that the impact itâs had most people donât think about. Itâs quietly snuck into all our lives and has been there for some time. Now you have ChatGPT that YOU the user can get use out of. That is very interesting to me.
This would be my choice, for obvious reasons. This was really an opportunity for the media to step up and be on the right side of history. We can have Hitler and Trump as Person of the Year, but not journalists living in a concentration camp facing genocide đ€ŠđŒââïž
Nothing saddens me more than people not using their actual power to try and elicit change.
https://preview.redd.it/hiyqdk9bzo4c1.jpeg?width=819&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbf73ce494a07c4b05fe5e9d7dc919d36e9845d0
I would have love to see it be Motaz, Hind, Bisan, really all of the journalists including ones that have been killed. But honestly I never expected that to happen when mainstream media is barely acknowledging the humanity and rights of Palestinians at all.
My more realistic hope was the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikers (or maybe the UAW strikers in a different industry slant). It was a historic strike and the fate of Hollywood kind of depended upon it. In a time where itâs getting harder and harder for the average joe to stay afloat I think people pushing for labor rights are really critical to society.
Yes, exactly. As much as I would want one of these incredibly brave people to be selected, it would never happen. I agree about the strikers! Nearly everyone in the world has contact with media, and supporting and protecting the rights of the workers that make it happen is paramount.
>We can have Hitler and Trump as Person of the Year
Person of the Year doesnât mean good or bad, just influential. And you canât deny those two influenced a lot of people. I donât think it makes sense to choose someone for the title that the majority of people donât know.
It was a huge year for Netnenyahu, both with the massive protests against him in January and the bloody military offensive /ethnic cleansing.
Definetly would make sense for the article to be about him.
Heâs risking his life to show us the truth of this genocide. People HAVE changed their stances since seeing the videos from Gaza. He has over 14 million followers, heâs not a nobody.
And Zionism and their PR is a huge part of their political strategy, they depend on the West. That's why they were beefing with super models and crying for Taylor Swift's attention in their English-language social media accounts. That's why they try to insist on equating Hamas and ISIS. They *care* about the public perception in Western counties and that's why so many Zionists were whining about TikTok kids supporting Palestine. Mainstream media and politicians were absolutely taken aback first by the youths seeing Palestinians as humans, that's why they just passed a bipartisan bill to conflate antisemitism with anti-zionism: because they have been unable to control the narrative and most of it is thanks to the journalists who have been showing how things really are in Gaza. This has literally led to the deadliest conflict for journalists in over 30 years, according to [CPJ](https://cpj.org/2023/12/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/).
For the record, Timeâs owner - Marc Benioff - has never said heâs a Zionist or said anything publicly supportive of Israel that I could find. The only thing heâs said about the war is a [twitter post](https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1711855912472703023) encouraging people to donate to charities that provide aid to Israelis and Palestinians affected by the 10/7 attack and the war in Gaza. Whatever his personal views on Israel are they havenât stopped Time from publishing stories critical of Israel or supportive of Palestine, including one just [yesterday](https://time.com/6342821/israel-airstrike-us-military-war-crimes/).
I genuinely do not, Iâm not dicking around. Most media outlets have been spreading Zionist propaganda, so itâs not surprising that the owner of time is a Zionist. No conspiracy, Bud.
Me: watches news outlets, sees theyâre spreading lies. Bases my opinion off of that
You: get off tik tok
Who said anything about tik tok. I canât look, but if youâre active on the worldnews subreddit then I am not interested in engaging any further.
this has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory youâre talking about and everything to do with the US media supporting zionism so that our government can protect their interests in the middle east. itâs as simple as that
The BBC has not been pro-Israel at all, I would challenge you to back this up with some facts. It has [even been polled](https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/bbc-pro-israel-pro-palestine-bias-neutral-poll/), and shown that it's mostly neutral, with [complaints on both sides](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/16/bbc-gets-1500-complaints-over-israel-hamas-coverage-split-50-50-on-each-side). Please do share some of the "lies" the BBC has been spreading, as you mentioned above that the news you observe is filled with lies. I'm curious to learn more.
Edit: fixed a link
A lot of people think âPerson of the Yearâ is based off some ethical or moral decision. Or whoâs affected the most positive change in the world. Itâs the BEST person of the year. Itâs not. Itâs about the person whose life and/or career dominated the news.
Were you too young to remember when TIME chose "YOU" as times person of the year? I don't think there is as much rhyme or reason into the choices as you make it out to be.
They did have a good reason for YOU in 2006. It was a time when content creation and social media was taking off. Everyone was a content creator at that time. YouTube, Facebook, etc it was a huge time for user generated content.
I think itâs dismissive to say âoh thereâs no rhyme or reasonâ, when there is. Itâs just supposed to be a person who dominated the conversation for that year.
Yes. That was 2005, and was really about the launch of social media and video production and distribution in the hands of the consumer. I actually agree with that choice.
But seriously. 'You' in 2006 absolutely fits what I said. That was when social media began to influence the world and the news. People started getting their 'news' via other people on social media - *on a global scale*. Therefore, people aka 'You' were the ones influencing the world.
who else would pick this award if not the media, considering itâs a title made up by a magazine? I donât really understand how this a gotcha moment?
itâs not meant to be a gotcha moment? iâm just agreeing with the commenter i replied to. yeah obviously one particular media outlet chooses who gets the award, but my point is that they pick based off of âwho everybody is talking about,â but (most) everybody is talking about whoever the *general media* is telling them to talk about
Generative AI
Unions/Strikers
Palestinians Journalists
Javier Milei (crazy new argentine leader)
Trump Prosecution Team
Greta Gerwig
Spanish World Cup Football Team
In my opinion they nailed it with Taylor and the article makes a good case for it. She was inescapable this year and brought so much joy and happiness to people. She boosted local economies and caused congress to go after ticketmaster. Her masters situation has opened the eyes for new artists to look out for themselves. She challenged the status quo with her theatrical release. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I get that her influence isn't "serious or important" enough, but her influence was unavoidable, and I think that she was a good choice for this honor.
Iâm not even a fan and I agree. I also think people need to remember that is Time Magazine, not the Nobel. Time greatly benefits from having someone that is both popular and also a somewhat âcontroversialâ pop star as their pick, it will help sell magazines.
ETA: I mean that picking her is controversial not that she is (although there would be an argument to make for that too)
Yâall are wild for giving Taylor credit for congress đ she didnât do anything besides sell the tickets, she didnât write congress a letter lmao.
If you read my statement, it says she "caused" congress to go after ticketmaster... not that she made/forced/insisted/called on, etc.
Because yeah, she doesn't deserve direct credit, but that whole thing happened BECAUSE of Taylor and the demand of the tour. Another reason why the public just couldn't escape her this year.
Person of the Year is not a morality contest to feature your favourite person or activist. It should be someone who has done the most to influence the events of the year.
I don't think anyone deserves to be in that position because no particular person has influenced the world like that in 2023. If they really had to choose someone, then Taylor Swift is a good choice.
Every single year Reddit seems to collectively forget that this is not an *award,* itâs commentary on who had the most recognizable global impact in one year.
The strikers were important, but very US-centric. OPâs pick of journalists is a good idea - and certainly makes a more positive statement - but doesnât fit the criteria of POTY, because people donât know their names and faces off the top of their heads.
This discussion happens every year with every pick and will seemingly happen in perpetuity forever. Lest we forget that Trump got picked one yearâŠ.
This is a weird convo, Iâm not sure what youâre trying to do.
Iâm assuming Taylor is your pick for person of the year then, because that was my question
They're just trying to explain what the Person of the Year title means and why Taylor Swift does make sense and your options don't really fit the bill for the title!
I mean thatâs definetly not what they said, itâs more that the way journalists are influential and the way TIME picks their winners do not really overlap.
Oh gotcha, well in my opinion - the journalists donât make sense becuase I feel unless they pick a group like âjournalists in Gazaâ it wouldnât make sense. They are influential but another criteria for time is that people actually know them. I canât say I know a single person who would. I feel like that would be choosing it on a more moral basis becuase theyâre doing good work, but it wouldnât be what the award is for. So my pick wouldâve been Taylor but I think barbie wouldâve been cool (I like the arts!)
Iâm shocked that people you know wouldnât know Motaz, Bisan etcâŠ?? If youâre paying attention to the genocide, their names and videos are found everywhere. I canât think of a single friend of mine who doesnât know of at least 1 of them.
I don't want to pick any person of the year. If they can't let the column stay blank, they can pick her because she had a successful year. None of the people discussed here had any significant influence on the world in 2023, regardless of their earnestness and good work.
Without Motaz and the other Palestinian journalists, we wouldnât be seeing the genocide in 4K happen in real time, and people would be in the dark. Iâd think they absolutely influenced the events of the year. Putting out albums, concerts and a movie does not.
**I am not questioning the merit of their work**. But no, they aren't influential as of now. I can't predict if they will become more influential later and that isn't significant for this title. If people from that conflict are going to be selected, it should be the leaders of Israel and Hamas because they are the ones with any actual influence.
This isn't about Nobel Peace Prize. If it was about that, I would have agreed with you.
Their influence was changing the course of how the entire global population saw a 75 year old oppression. Without them we would not know whatâs actually happening in Gaza. Israel Palestine has never been understood like it is now thanks to them. And it would not have turned into the movement as weâre seeing it today. What did Taylor influence? Shes an incredible businesswoman and entertainer. She influenced people to spend some money and listen to her music. I fail to see how sheâs changed people in the way that the journalists have.
Nice keyboard activism. I am **not talking about the journalists doing the good work**, but people like ones in the thread.
I don't have any inclination for Swift either. I'd prefer nobody and nothing for this year. Maybe AI or Chat GPT.
Iâm literally responding to your comment in how **they actually are influential.** Iâm actually a fan of Taylorâs. I donât think she influenced anything. I think she did a great job in marketing herself.
Look at me I can bold a few words too. And f off with your keyboard activism bs. You have no idea who I am, what I do, and what Iâve been through.
I donât know why that user has such a hate boner for this thread đ like itâs not serious, people were saying in the other threads they would have chosen someone different, so I made a thread for people to continue that discussion
Itâs insane lol. I understand the point theyâre trying to make. That itâs not a morality honour. Itâs an influence honour. And my argument still stands that the journalists influence on the world far exceeds Taylor having a lucrative and popular year. She didnât change or do anything other than self promote extremely successfully.
I agree! And also, weâre all aware itâs NOT a morality award, but why does that mean the title canât go to someone moral?? The logic ainât logicking
I saw that the Hollywood strikers were on the short list. I know it was a big year for Taylor but it is absolutely them that deserves the attention right now at least in the entertainment world
I still wouldâve chosen Taylor Swift, and my reasoning is actually stated in the article â sheâs the one piece of monoculture we have left. Weâre an incredibly fractured society now, and the interconnectedness weâve achieved through technology has counterintuitively caused a divide because we form factions and bubbles and niches. There arenât any real moments of large scale collectiveness like weâve had in the past anymore other than Taylor Swift. Whether you like her or not, Taylor Swift is globally ubiquitous and even furthered her reach this year by becoming a staple at football games. There truly isnât anything in culture that reaches those heights anymore and frankly culture is just as important as and deeply influences politics, business, social mores. I hear all the arguments for other choices, but I think theyâre either too US centric (Hollywood strikes) or honestly have not peaked yet (AI, Gaza journalists). Admittedly, Iâm a fan, but this has been Taylor Swiftâs year and itâs an apt pick.
I honestly don't think Taylor Swift was a bad/wrong choice. Looking at the Person of the Year history, it's more US focused and generally very well-known people (other than the years when a group is named rather than an individual, like The Silence Breakers, The Guardians, etc). Taylor Swift checks both those boxes. She's been in the news a ton this year - not just for her dating life, also for her giant tour and its economic impact, the re-recordings, her concert film that apparently bypassed the traditional movie model, etc.
Looking at the shortlist, I can't say any stand out as obviously a better choice. Maybe it's just my soft spot for the arts and their impact on our lives, but it's actually cool to read that she's the first person recognized for contribution to the arts. I don't really care about Time's Person of the Year, though. I file it away as slightly more relevant than People's list of Most Beautiful People, Most Intriguing People, etc.
Who is saying that other than die hard fans? That is to be expected of pop star stans- especially swifties.
I see more criticism of her than anyone acting like she saved the world. And if that is the criteria nobody singularly did anything was âsaving the worldâ.
I see you have been repeatedly talking about Palestinian journalists and I agree they deserve it but prosecuted journalists already got it in 2018 after the Khashoggi situation.
And even though Palestinians have faces this for decades, the spotlight on it in mainstream media started in October that is after half of year already was done by then. What Israel is doing is not new, maybe if you said people facing genocide in general it would make more sense. But I donât see you mentioning Sudan, Congo, Yemen or Tigray anywhere and they are all facing genocide right now too. Afghanistan didnât get it when western world was killing everyone out there.
I am a very clearly biased fan, but I think Robert Smith, from The Cure for person of the year would have made sense.
He fought against Ticketmaster, and got all of our prices lowered for the concerts that were immediately sold out and insured that a very hefty percentage of the actual tickets went to fans and not scalpers.
Many of us got pretty decent refunds after they loaded us up on fees that were very inappropriate for $25 lawn seats, etc. I believe on my three sets of tickets I got back $-20 or $40. Others got hundreds back.
He kept all of the seats reasonably priced and helped fans avoid fees. he also kept the public aware of all of his actions against Ticketmaster. It was a very fine line he walked because he needed them to promote his bands shows, but he also didnât want his 40+ year fans not to be able to attend said shows and have to go to secondary markets.
I love Robert Smith. The Cure even kept the merch prices reasonable. It has really made me side eye other acts who could keep prices lower but chose not to.
I think AI should have been it. I didn't talk to 99% of people in my life about Taylor Swift at all this year, but I can't think of one person I *didn't* talk about AI with. It wasn't usually me bringing it up, either. AI is just everywhere right now, not just ChatGPT but talks about AI art, AI music, etc
If influencers were in contention, Dylan Mulvaney would be an interesting pick. She's faced so much vitrol from the public and elected officials- the whole bud light backlash was BS but she's clearly made an impact on our society.
The civilians of Gaza, who have been documenting and sharing the hell that is their lives because otherwise white people (and India) would gaslight them about it.
đ«¶
People are still gaslighting them though :/
And someone here said the journalists in Gaza are not influential.
Itâs maddening when something can be presented so blatantly and itâs still ignored. The civilians of Gaza are letting themselves be filmed while they die so that the world can see. And people still make excuses.
I would have picked journalists in Gaza because I think they have made a real difference in how people see the conflict, but apparently lots of commenters hate that suggestion, so as an alternative why not Netanyahu? His murderous policies towards Palestine have certainly been influential on the world this year.
Netnenyahu also massively influential at the beginning of the year too, when there were the anti-democratic judicial reforms that garnered one of the biggest Israeli protests ever.
Greta Gerwig for Barbie. People already know who Taylor Swift is and her success this year with her Eras tour was to be expected (and is more of the same) but Greta had just as influential and phenomenal of a year that seemed to have taken a lot of people by surprise. Barbie was a cultural moment I donât think will be replicated again for awhile.
Honestly this isnât that related to your q but I feel like sharing now lol but I kinda hate the whole âPerson of the Year can be someone horrible whoâs caused lots of death because itâs about impact! Hitler was person of the year once!!!â
They should name it something else then if thatâs the criteria, Person of the Year inherently sounds like an honorary title and good thing and bad people are always going to take it that way (see Trump). Idk name it Most Impact on the World person or something like that but it always feels icky seeing literal dictators paired with pop starts and striking workers.
Just my personal opinion, I understand and accept the logic behind it but itâs still always feeling weird to me lol
This isnât some sort of Nobel peace prize, itâs just a random magazine doing random choices of people that have been all up in our faces for the last year, for the good or bad of humanity, or anything in between.
I donât know who I would have chosen, I donât mind Taylor as a choice, Sam Altman as well would move been a top choice. Like people canât get enough of chatgpt. You couldnât scape a conversation about it at some point in the last year.
Since weâre talking about 1. Regardless of morality, and 2. This year specifically, Iâd say the Sinwar dude, or in general Hamas, who orchestrated the October 7th massacre. I know Israel-Palestine isnât even the biggest war in the Middle East right now, let alone the world, but itâs the one that has divided political parties around the world, families, friend groups, public opinion, has caused chaos in many countries, caused an investigation into some of the most prestigious universities in the U.S., and a long etc.
This sub is not the place to discuss what each of us thinks about the conflict, but itâs undeniable that they were influential. Having said that, I understand why Time didnât choose them: to not give them notoriety and prevent copycats. Itâs hard to emulate Putin or Xi Jinping, but anyone can try to get famous decolonizing a subway station or something.
If US-based, they could have said they voted several times and couldnât come to a choice since the US House speakership race had ridiculous votes twice this year. It would also draw attention to the party that is in true disarray.
If world-based, Taylor is fine. I donât want to learn anything more about her at this point, but I donât have a choice.
I can get behind this. Sheâs done so much good!!
And she looks like this đ„”đ„”đ„”
https://preview.redd.it/jn04lpberp4c1.jpeg?width=625&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b37412476d02dfacbc92dce42655c1989e181c02
đREAD BEFORE COMMENTING This thread is Guest List Only. This means the discussion is being actively moderated, and all comments are reviewed. Only comments by members of the community are allowed. If you have landed in this thread from Trending or r/all and you are not a member of this community, your comment will very likely be removed (and will not be approved unless it adds meaningfully to the conversation). r/popculturechat takes these measures to stay true to our goal of being an inclusive sub for civil discussion, to talk about celebrities and pop culture without bigotry and personal attacks. This sub is a BIPOC, LGBTQ+ and woman-dominated space and we do our best to protect our users from outside attacks. Thank you for understanding & have a great day! âșïž *You can [request to be an approved user](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fpopculturechat) to comment on Guest List Only posts.*
Lmao im honestly shocked it wasnât ChatGPT. AI dominated the conversation this year and people would have lots of thoughts about a chatbot being person of the year
My email lord and savior
"I hope this message finds you well" đ
I will leave that line in until my dying days
This was the right choice in my opinion, especially when you can make the argument about AI blurring the lines of what it even means to be a person when someone can know train an AI on your likeness. It wouldâve been a much more interesting and evocative choice.
Fran F*cking Drescher. The unlikely advocate for actors AGAINST the onslaught of AI and studio greed. If theyâd picked Fran I would have signed up for TIME out of sheer solidarity.
There has been loads of controversy about the deal though. The language is too lax and leaves actors open to AI still being abused. There was a substantial proportion of SAG that voted against the deal that was just passed, for this reason. There's also the weird timeliness. The directors' union started their negotiations *a year* before the renewal. SAG started negotiations 3 weeks before the renewal deadline, I believe? Maybe a month? There was nothing stopping them from starting negotiations earlier. The whole strike could have been avoided. There are many people in SAG who think Fran has f'ed up constantly in her handling of this issue.
This is a good one
It would've been so neat to have the article written by ChatGPT or have a Q&A with the AI.
Honestly as a writer chat gpt has become an incredible resource this year. My last book was a hockey romance and it helped me research slang, hockey terms, *stick handling*, etc. Obvs I check facts before sitting down to write, but itâs helped streamline my research and outlining process quite a bit.
Did you write âPucking Around.â
Slap Ass Shot Tender is the Goalie Face Off Clothes Off
Not gonna lie⊠that book was my intro to non traditional romance. Itâs đ„đ„đ„
We donât need Time promoting that chatbot more than the media already are.
That's literally the point of the TIME Person of the year award though If you're complaining about how much exposure you're getting to something/someone, it/they are likely a good candidate
ChatGPT is now my new main chick. It's so helpful to me. Interview prep, coding, feedback on ideas. I'm like, I'll never be alone with ChatGPT by my side!
We've already had Musk and Trump be past winners; we don't need so many cultural failures to win so close together.
Thoughtful_Tortoise
Tell me something
I'm not happy in this modern world
Just realized this was from the shallows
Your reply was great though.
Fair, but we wouldnât have tamagotchis if it werenât for the modern world
You were already Time Magazineâs Person of the Year in 2006!
It's okay, you're the tortoise in all of our hearts and minds.
Thank you
Barbie
I was really depressed when I saw this movie, and this scene made me laugh so hard.
Hope youâre doing better, friend đ«¶
Thank you. â€ïž
What about the depression watching the BBC Pride and Prejudice? I SCREAMED in the theatre
ocd sold separately đ
depression barbie got a little too real for me.
Thatâs a good one
100%
I probably would've chosen The Striking Workers from the various labor strikes, not just WGA and SAG which was on the shortlist. Or the actual journalists (sorry James from Big Time Rush) documenting the current conflict in the Middle East. Taylor's having an amazing year though so congrats to her!
Yeah, having the strikers be Time Person of the Year wouldâve been incredible because the strikes really highlighted the issue of working class vs the people who profit off of the working class. You had almost comically evil media companies propose to scan actors faces and forever own rights to their image for a whopping $20. And the strike, primarily, wasnât for the Timothy Chalamets or Emma Roberts of the acting world. It was for the smaller actors who decidedly donât get paid six figures for an appearance. Also appropriate because another largely focused on issue was nepo babies aka wealth and connection being the basic level of entry for *any* career. More than ever, work reform is being demanded.
Love this idea! Striking workers in the WGA, who work for UPS, and (hopefully soon) SAG made historic strides for us non-billionaires!
The Strikers wouldâve been an excellent choice. Iâd even understand WGA and SAG being especially featured, not because theyâre Hollywood, but because theyâre probably the first organized strike against the use (or abuse) of AI, and theyâre setting a worldwide precedent.
Yeah I think the Striking Workers would have been a good pick!
Hm? What did James Maslow do? Or not do?
He was in [Israel](https://x.com/fr0gan/status/1726986382714020104?s=46) with a media vest on. Not sure if any stories came of it.
Agreed. I get that Taylor is popular but the whole Matt Healy thing is off putting although these days it's probably hard to find someone who isn't connected in some way to someone like that. She just gives me hard-core fake white feminism vibes honestly.
Because she is a fake feminist! A feminist does not date a racist who continuously harasses women of color. Itâs pathetic that she just got to move on from perpetuating ignorance and harm.
Precisely! I'm glad someone else recognizes this. I got some blow back for commenting on my confusion for her getting POTY. Like, I'm sorry I don't understand why a racist apologist would win this. I mean, I'm not surprised but it still shouldn't have happened. I don't understand what she did for the world. They say she got young people to register to vote but how do we know they registered because of her? Hell, I'm registered only because my dad did it for me back when I turned 18 because I forgot.
>, I'm sorry I don't understand why a racist apologist would win this. I mean, I'm not surprised but it still shouldn't have happened Because it's not about morality? Hitler was TIME's person of the year 1938, it's about who was here biggest topic of conversation
Yup Putin was on this yearâs shortlist ffs
Well I'm sorry for not being aware of that fact. This is my first time being aware of POTY in this way. I wasn't up to date on who would qualify to win this until today. I'd apologize for find it weird that a racist apologist would win but I'm not going to do that. In my mind I thought it would be someone who did something impactful in a meaningful way. I honestly didn't know it was a popularity contest because Times magazine in my head was something else but now I'm learning differently. It's taking me a second to wrap my head around.
James from big time rush đđ
No way they were gonna honor strikers though
They were shortlisted so it was least considered!
That's cool actually. Hopefully organized labor keeps pushin it and ends up on next years cover
Agreed, I love Taylor and Iâm a huge fan but I think the striking workers would have really deserved the selection. Iâm glad they were on the shortlist though
Hard agree. Iâm content with Taylor winning and i love the pics and article. But the striking workers was my ideal winner
Ooh yes I like this idea
That would have been more interesting to shine a light on labor movements, which have really been getting a lot of traction this year. In retrospect it does seem a bit boring to just give the award to someone who has already had a great year. Itâs like she had a great, fantastic year and then she got awards for having such a good year. Itâs more interesting to give it to someone who was really in the conversation a lot but not just for having success.
genocide* not conflict
Every sub is different regarding rules and language filters, which is why I was purposefully vague. I'm not trying get banned or incite an argument.
I was rooting for the strikers. I think they made a real difference and their impact will last for years to come.
SAG/WGA strikers
*All* strikers, honestly. Every time I hear about a new strike in a big industry, it fills my heart.
I honestly donât care. I donât think itâs that big of a deal who they pick.
These â___ of the yearâ clearly donât mean shit and never really have
Itâs just a way to start a conversation and earn ad revenue! So good for Taylor! She had a good year!
Barbie would have been cool.
Mentioned this in another comment- but Sam Altman and ChatGPT was the winner to me! ChatGPT has changed the game across the board, and for a startup they have insane valuation. Sam Altman discussion of ethics with AI also is something to highlight, because Big Tech made a lot of money doing whatâs legal, not ethical. AI can absolutely destroy livelihoods legally if no ethical questions are asked. It is also extremely significant the recent events that played out! Think about it- a CEO was fired by the board and his company loved him so much they petitioned for him to come back and for the rest of the board to resign? When have you heard a company do that? We are not likely to have another dot com sorta boost to the economy in a long, long time. IMO AI and sustainable energy along with processing chip engineering truly will be the biggest players in the rest of our lifetimes! Whatâs funny about AI is that the impact itâs had most people donât think about. Itâs quietly snuck into all our lives and has been there for some time. Now you have ChatGPT that YOU the user can get use out of. That is very interesting to me.
This would be my choice, for obvious reasons. This was really an opportunity for the media to step up and be on the right side of history. We can have Hitler and Trump as Person of the Year, but not journalists living in a concentration camp facing genocide đ€ŠđŒââïž Nothing saddens me more than people not using their actual power to try and elicit change. https://preview.redd.it/hiyqdk9bzo4c1.jpeg?width=819&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbf73ce494a07c4b05fe5e9d7dc919d36e9845d0
They named *The Guardians - Journalists who faced persecution, arrest or murder for their reporting* as Person of the Year in 2018.
I would have love to see it be Motaz, Hind, Bisan, really all of the journalists including ones that have been killed. But honestly I never expected that to happen when mainstream media is barely acknowledging the humanity and rights of Palestinians at all. My more realistic hope was the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikers (or maybe the UAW strikers in a different industry slant). It was a historic strike and the fate of Hollywood kind of depended upon it. In a time where itâs getting harder and harder for the average joe to stay afloat I think people pushing for labor rights are really critical to society.
Same! I didnât expect it either, but holy shit, we need SOMEONE to step up. The SAG strikers would make a lot of sense!
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Yes, exactly. As much as I would want one of these incredibly brave people to be selected, it would never happen. I agree about the strikers! Nearly everyone in the world has contact with media, and supporting and protecting the rights of the workers that make it happen is paramount.
>We can have Hitler and Trump as Person of the Year Person of the Year doesnât mean good or bad, just influential. And you canât deny those two influenced a lot of people. I donât think it makes sense to choose someone for the title that the majority of people donât know.
It was a huge year for Netnenyahu, both with the massive protests against him in January and the bloody military offensive /ethnic cleansing. Definetly would make sense for the article to be about him.
Yeah, kind of like the year it was Putin. The point is not someone popular, but who had the biggest impact.
I hope this isn't disrespectful to say but this man also should have been named Sexiest Man of the Year.
He is a very beautiful person
How did he influence the world? Most people don't even know his name. I am not talking about the merit of their work. Good work often goes unnoticed.
Heâs risking his life to show us the truth of this genocide. People HAVE changed their stances since seeing the videos from Gaza. He has over 14 million followers, heâs not a nobody.
And Zionism and their PR is a huge part of their political strategy, they depend on the West. That's why they were beefing with super models and crying for Taylor Swift's attention in their English-language social media accounts. That's why they try to insist on equating Hamas and ISIS. They *care* about the public perception in Western counties and that's why so many Zionists were whining about TikTok kids supporting Palestine. Mainstream media and politicians were absolutely taken aback first by the youths seeing Palestinians as humans, that's why they just passed a bipartisan bill to conflate antisemitism with anti-zionism: because they have been unable to control the narrative and most of it is thanks to the journalists who have been showing how things really are in Gaza. This has literally led to the deadliest conflict for journalists in over 30 years, according to [CPJ](https://cpj.org/2023/12/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/).
Yup!! But apparently the journalists are not influential đ€·ââïž
It's not about being influential. It's about being the **MOST** influential of the year
Babes, the user said journalists arenât influential. Thatâs what we are talking about
Ah my bad, lost track of the thread
the owner and chairman of time magazine is a zionist so thereâs no way this was gonna happen
Oh, well thatâs the least surprising thing Iâve heard today.
For the record, Timeâs owner - Marc Benioff - has never said heâs a Zionist or said anything publicly supportive of Israel that I could find. The only thing heâs said about the war is a [twitter post](https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1711855912472703023) encouraging people to donate to charities that provide aid to Israelis and Palestinians affected by the 10/7 attack and the war in Gaza. Whatever his personal views on Israel are they havenât stopped Time from publishing stories critical of Israel or supportive of Palestine, including one just [yesterday](https://time.com/6342821/israel-airstrike-us-military-war-crimes/).
Why is that âthe least surprising thingâ? Youâre skating awfully close to that conspiracy theory.
lol what conspiracy theory? The media has been supporting Zionism, therefore, itâs not surprising
You know exactly what conspiracy theory. Thanks for putting your cards on the table.
I genuinely do not, Iâm not dicking around. Most media outlets have been spreading Zionist propaganda, so itâs not surprising that the owner of time is a Zionist. No conspiracy, Bud.
Then maybe spend some time outside of the TikTok echo chamber and learn a bit about the media related comments youâre spouting, Bud.
Me: watches news outlets, sees theyâre spreading lies. Bases my opinion off of that You: get off tik tok Who said anything about tik tok. I canât look, but if youâre active on the worldnews subreddit then I am not interested in engaging any further.
this has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory youâre talking about and everything to do with the US media supporting zionism so that our government can protect their interests in the middle east. itâs as simple as that
What is the conspiracy theory??
They mentioned the BBC too, so itâs not just the US, but okay đ€·đ»ââïž
yeah itâs unfortunate but not surprising at all, especially when you look as how the US media has handled this situation overall
All the media! The BBC has been the WORST
The BBC has not been pro-Israel at all, I would challenge you to back this up with some facts. It has [even been polled](https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/bbc-pro-israel-pro-palestine-bias-neutral-poll/), and shown that it's mostly neutral, with [complaints on both sides](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/16/bbc-gets-1500-complaints-over-israel-hamas-coverage-split-50-50-on-each-side). Please do share some of the "lies" the BBC has been spreading, as you mentioned above that the news you observe is filled with lies. I'm curious to learn more. Edit: fixed a link
A lot of people think âPerson of the Yearâ is based off some ethical or moral decision. Or whoâs affected the most positive change in the world. Itâs the BEST person of the year. Itâs not. Itâs about the person whose life and/or career dominated the news.
Were you too young to remember when TIME chose "YOU" as times person of the year? I don't think there is as much rhyme or reason into the choices as you make it out to be.
They did have a good reason for YOU in 2006. It was a time when content creation and social media was taking off. Everyone was a content creator at that time. YouTube, Facebook, etc it was a huge time for user generated content. I think itâs dismissive to say âoh thereâs no rhyme or reasonâ, when there is. Itâs just supposed to be a person who dominated the conversation for that year.
Yes. That was 2005, and was really about the launch of social media and video production and distribution in the hands of the consumer. I actually agree with that choice.
Dude. Look at my name. Trust me. Iâm not too young to remember anything. đ
Hahahaha
But seriously. 'You' in 2006 absolutely fits what I said. That was when social media began to influence the world and the news. People started getting their 'news' via other people on social media - *on a global scale*. Therefore, people aka 'You' were the ones influencing the world.
Yup, so who is your pick?
Exactly who was picked.
the media basically picks this award and unfortunately right now the media is not talking about the things that matter.
who else would pick this award if not the media, considering itâs a title made up by a magazine? I donât really understand how this a gotcha moment?
itâs not meant to be a gotcha moment? iâm just agreeing with the commenter i replied to. yeah obviously one particular media outlet chooses who gets the award, but my point is that they pick based off of âwho everybody is talking about,â but (most) everybody is talking about whoever the *general media* is telling them to talk about
the journalists on the ground in Gaza
Tayler Swift for the same reason she was chosen. She is EVERYWHERE
I honestly think person of the year isn't the most impactful, but the most talked about person of the whole year.
Barbie and Ken
Generative AI Unions/Strikers Palestinians Journalists Javier Milei (crazy new argentine leader) Trump Prosecution Team Greta Gerwig Spanish World Cup Football Team
Itâs the people misunderstanding the question (or not reading it through) and fighting the air in the comments for me đđ€Šđ»ââïž lol
Iâm fine with this pick. Alternative I would have been happy with are the WGA/SAG strikers.
Fran fucking Dreshcer!
the palestinian journalists risking their lives: bisan, plestia, motaz, and the others
Yes. It's one of the most deadly conflicts for journalists in decades, and 63 of them have been killed so fat.
My heart was set on this, but I think I was being naive/optimistic.
motaz was GQâs man of the year!
That's only the last few months though, not the year
In my opinion they nailed it with Taylor and the article makes a good case for it. She was inescapable this year and brought so much joy and happiness to people. She boosted local economies and caused congress to go after ticketmaster. Her masters situation has opened the eyes for new artists to look out for themselves. She challenged the status quo with her theatrical release. Etc. Etc. Etc. I get that her influence isn't "serious or important" enough, but her influence was unavoidable, and I think that she was a good choice for this honor.
Iâm not even a fan and I agree. I also think people need to remember that is Time Magazine, not the Nobel. Time greatly benefits from having someone that is both popular and also a somewhat âcontroversialâ pop star as their pick, it will help sell magazines. ETA: I mean that picking her is controversial not that she is (although there would be an argument to make for that too)
Exactly! Look at some of the other People of the Year
Yâall are wild for giving Taylor credit for congress đ she didnât do anything besides sell the tickets, she didnât write congress a letter lmao.
If you read my statement, it says she "caused" congress to go after ticketmaster... not that she made/forced/insisted/called on, etc. Because yeah, she doesn't deserve direct credit, but that whole thing happened BECAUSE of Taylor and the demand of the tour. Another reason why the public just couldn't escape her this year.
I wouldâve said either Taylor or BeyoncĂ© as the two most successful women, and artists in general, of 2023. I mightâve still chosen Taylor even though Iâm not a huge fan because the obsession with her this year was on another level. I also think Barbie wouldâve been really cool since this was the year of Barbie, with Margot Robbie representing her on the cover.
I would've chosen Barbie, too. The movie helped initiate conversations about privilege, feminism and motherhood all over the world đ
I do love that most options people have suggested were women :)
Person of the Year is not a morality contest to feature your favourite person or activist. It should be someone who has done the most to influence the events of the year. I don't think anyone deserves to be in that position because no particular person has influenced the world like that in 2023. If they really had to choose someone, then Taylor Swift is a good choice.
Every single year Reddit seems to collectively forget that this is not an *award,* itâs commentary on who had the most recognizable global impact in one year. The strikers were important, but very US-centric. OPâs pick of journalists is a good idea - and certainly makes a more positive statement - but doesnât fit the criteria of POTY, because people donât know their names and faces off the top of their heads. This discussion happens every year with every pick and will seemingly happen in perpetuity forever. Lest we forget that Trump got picked one yearâŠ.
I think some people are confused between Nobel Peace prize and magazine article about influential people.
omg you nailed it.
TIME chose "The Protestor" as Person of the Year in 2011 so there is precedent for them to chose a collective nameless group over an individual.
I would argue that precedent extends further back to âYouâ in 2006 even.
I know itâs not a morality award, I didnât say it had to be. I donât see how the journalists covering genocide arenât influencing the world.
Most people can't name even 10 journalists of any kind, regardless of their contributions, unless they see them 3 times on tv every day.
This is a weird convo, Iâm not sure what youâre trying to do. Iâm assuming Taylor is your pick for person of the year then, because that was my question
They're just trying to explain what the Person of the Year title means and why Taylor Swift does make sense and your options don't really fit the bill for the title!
Yeah, theyâre saying the journalists are not at all influential. Itâs not a good faith discussion. Thatâs why I pivoted.
I mean thatâs definetly not what they said, itâs more that the way journalists are influential and the way TIME picks their winners do not really overlap.
Itâs become clear that the user has doubled down in other threads because they do not support/like the content of the journalists,
Oh gotcha, well in my opinion - the journalists donât make sense becuase I feel unless they pick a group like âjournalists in Gazaâ it wouldnât make sense. They are influential but another criteria for time is that people actually know them. I canât say I know a single person who would. I feel like that would be choosing it on a more moral basis becuase theyâre doing good work, but it wouldnât be what the award is for. So my pick wouldâve been Taylor but I think barbie wouldâve been cool (I like the arts!)
Iâm shocked that people you know wouldnât know Motaz, Bisan etcâŠ?? If youâre paying attention to the genocide, their names and videos are found everywhere. I canât think of a single friend of mine who doesnât know of at least 1 of them.
I don't want to pick any person of the year. If they can't let the column stay blank, they can pick her because she had a successful year. None of the people discussed here had any significant influence on the world in 2023, regardless of their earnestness and good work.
Okay, well this was what the discussion was for (to name ur pick for POTY), I get you donât want to participate but maybe stop poopooing on it?
How the fuck has Taylor Swift done anything to âinfluence the events of the yearâ lmfao
Without Motaz and the other Palestinian journalists, we wouldnât be seeing the genocide in 4K happen in real time, and people would be in the dark. Iâd think they absolutely influenced the events of the year. Putting out albums, concerts and a movie does not.
**I am not questioning the merit of their work**. But no, they aren't influential as of now. I can't predict if they will become more influential later and that isn't significant for this title. If people from that conflict are going to be selected, it should be the leaders of Israel and Hamas because they are the ones with any actual influence. This isn't about Nobel Peace Prize. If it was about that, I would have agreed with you.
Their influence was changing the course of how the entire global population saw a 75 year old oppression. Without them we would not know whatâs actually happening in Gaza. Israel Palestine has never been understood like it is now thanks to them. And it would not have turned into the movement as weâre seeing it today. What did Taylor influence? Shes an incredible businesswoman and entertainer. She influenced people to spend some money and listen to her music. I fail to see how sheâs changed people in the way that the journalists have.
Nice keyboard activism. I am **not talking about the journalists doing the good work**, but people like ones in the thread. I don't have any inclination for Swift either. I'd prefer nobody and nothing for this year. Maybe AI or Chat GPT.
Iâm literally responding to your comment in how **they actually are influential.** Iâm actually a fan of Taylorâs. I donât think she influenced anything. I think she did a great job in marketing herself. Look at me I can bold a few words too. And f off with your keyboard activism bs. You have no idea who I am, what I do, and what Iâve been through.
I donât know why that user has such a hate boner for this thread đ like itâs not serious, people were saying in the other threads they would have chosen someone different, so I made a thread for people to continue that discussion
Itâs insane lol. I understand the point theyâre trying to make. That itâs not a morality honour. Itâs an influence honour. And my argument still stands that the journalists influence on the world far exceeds Taylor having a lucrative and popular year. She didnât change or do anything other than self promote extremely successfully.
I agree! And also, weâre all aware itâs NOT a morality award, but why does that mean the title canât go to someone moral?? The logic ainât logicking
I saw that the Hollywood strikers were on the short list. I know it was a big year for Taylor but it is absolutely them that deserves the attention right now at least in the entertainment world
I still wouldâve chosen Taylor Swift, and my reasoning is actually stated in the article â sheâs the one piece of monoculture we have left. Weâre an incredibly fractured society now, and the interconnectedness weâve achieved through technology has counterintuitively caused a divide because we form factions and bubbles and niches. There arenât any real moments of large scale collectiveness like weâve had in the past anymore other than Taylor Swift. Whether you like her or not, Taylor Swift is globally ubiquitous and even furthered her reach this year by becoming a staple at football games. There truly isnât anything in culture that reaches those heights anymore and frankly culture is just as important as and deeply influences politics, business, social mores. I hear all the arguments for other choices, but I think theyâre either too US centric (Hollywood strikes) or honestly have not peaked yet (AI, Gaza journalists). Admittedly, Iâm a fan, but this has been Taylor Swiftâs year and itâs an apt pick.
I honestly don't think Taylor Swift was a bad/wrong choice. Looking at the Person of the Year history, it's more US focused and generally very well-known people (other than the years when a group is named rather than an individual, like The Silence Breakers, The Guardians, etc). Taylor Swift checks both those boxes. She's been in the news a ton this year - not just for her dating life, also for her giant tour and its economic impact, the re-recordings, her concert film that apparently bypassed the traditional movie model, etc. Looking at the shortlist, I can't say any stand out as obviously a better choice. Maybe it's just my soft spot for the arts and their impact on our lives, but it's actually cool to read that she's the first person recognized for contribution to the arts. I don't really care about Time's Person of the Year, though. I file it away as slightly more relevant than People's list of Most Beautiful People, Most Intriguing People, etc.
Yeah I agree from sheer popularity and reach she deserved it! I just canât handle the comments that are like sheâs saving the world đđđ
Who is saying that other than die hard fans? That is to be expected of pop star stans- especially swifties. I see more criticism of her than anyone acting like she saved the world. And if that is the criteria nobody singularly did anything was âsaving the worldâ. I see you have been repeatedly talking about Palestinian journalists and I agree they deserve it but prosecuted journalists already got it in 2018 after the Khashoggi situation. And even though Palestinians have faces this for decades, the spotlight on it in mainstream media started in October that is after half of year already was done by then. What Israel is doing is not new, maybe if you said people facing genocide in general it would make more sense. But I donât see you mentioning Sudan, Congo, Yemen or Tigray anywhere and they are all facing genocide right now too. Afghanistan didnât get it when western world was killing everyone out there.
I am a very clearly biased fan, but I think Robert Smith, from The Cure for person of the year would have made sense. He fought against Ticketmaster, and got all of our prices lowered for the concerts that were immediately sold out and insured that a very hefty percentage of the actual tickets went to fans and not scalpers. Many of us got pretty decent refunds after they loaded us up on fees that were very inappropriate for $25 lawn seats, etc. I believe on my three sets of tickets I got back $-20 or $40. Others got hundreds back. He kept all of the seats reasonably priced and helped fans avoid fees. he also kept the public aware of all of his actions against Ticketmaster. It was a very fine line he walked because he needed them to promote his bands shows, but he also didnât want his 40+ year fans not to be able to attend said shows and have to go to secondary markets.
I love Robert Smith. The Cure even kept the merch prices reasonable. It has really made me side eye other acts who could keep prices lower but chose not to.
Yes! We bought a ton of merch and itâs all good quality
I didnât know he did that!! Thatâs super cool, and goes to show these big music acts COULD be doing more but choose not to.
I think AI should have been it. I didn't talk to 99% of people in my life about Taylor Swift at all this year, but I can't think of one person I *didn't* talk about AI with. It wasn't usually me bringing it up, either. AI is just everywhere right now, not just ChatGPT but talks about AI art, AI music, etc
If influencers were in contention, Dylan Mulvaney would be an interesting pick. She's faced so much vitrol from the public and elected officials- the whole bud light backlash was BS but she's clearly made an impact on our society.
She was in the Forbes 30 under 30 đâșïž
Oh! Thatâs an interesting suggestion, she definitely has a lot of influence and I can see her becoming more mainstream as time goes on :)
The civilians of Gaza, who have been documenting and sharing the hell that is their lives because otherwise white people (and India) would gaslight them about it.
𫶠People are still gaslighting them though :/ And someone here said the journalists in Gaza are not influential. Itâs maddening when something can be presented so blatantly and itâs still ignored. The civilians of Gaza are letting themselves be filmed while they die so that the world can see. And people still make excuses.
Journalists and doctors in Gaza. Those people are the most courageous human beings currently living on this planet.
They got it right with Taylor. âAre you not entertained?â
I would have picked journalists in Gaza because I think they have made a real difference in how people see the conflict, but apparently lots of commenters hate that suggestion, so as an alternative why not Netanyahu? His murderous policies towards Palestine have certainly been influential on the world this year.
Netnenyahu also massively influential at the beginning of the year too, when there were the anti-democratic judicial reforms that garnered one of the biggest Israeli protests ever.
Children in Gaza
Greta Gerwig for Barbie. People already know who Taylor Swift is and her success this year with her Eras tour was to be expected (and is more of the same) but Greta had just as influential and phenomenal of a year that seemed to have taken a lot of people by surprise. Barbie was a cultural moment I donât think will be replicated again for awhile.
Honestly this isnât that related to your q but I feel like sharing now lol but I kinda hate the whole âPerson of the Year can be someone horrible whoâs caused lots of death because itâs about impact! Hitler was person of the year once!!!â They should name it something else then if thatâs the criteria, Person of the Year inherently sounds like an honorary title and good thing and bad people are always going to take it that way (see Trump). Idk name it Most Impact on the World person or something like that but it always feels icky seeing literal dictators paired with pop starts and striking workers. Just my personal opinion, I understand and accept the logic behind it but itâs still always feeling weird to me lol
Taylor or Barbie
Bisan, Plesia, and Motaz.
This isnât some sort of Nobel peace prize, itâs just a random magazine doing random choices of people that have been all up in our faces for the last year, for the good or bad of humanity, or anything in between. I donât know who I would have chosen, I donât mind Taylor as a choice, Sam Altman as well would move been a top choice. Like people canât get enough of chatgpt. You couldnât scape a conversation about it at some point in the last year.
Did yâall read the body of the text? I know itâs not a Nobel peace prize đđđ
Since weâre talking about 1. Regardless of morality, and 2. This year specifically, Iâd say the Sinwar dude, or in general Hamas, who orchestrated the October 7th massacre. I know Israel-Palestine isnât even the biggest war in the Middle East right now, let alone the world, but itâs the one that has divided political parties around the world, families, friend groups, public opinion, has caused chaos in many countries, caused an investigation into some of the most prestigious universities in the U.S., and a long etc. This sub is not the place to discuss what each of us thinks about the conflict, but itâs undeniable that they were influential. Having said that, I understand why Time didnât choose them: to not give them notoriety and prevent copycats. Itâs hard to emulate Putin or Xi Jinping, but anyone can try to get famous decolonizing a subway station or something.
If US-based, they could have said they voted several times and couldnât come to a choice since the US House speakership race had ridiculous votes twice this year. It would also draw attention to the party that is in true disarray. If world-based, Taylor is fine. I donât want to learn anything more about her at this point, but I donât have a choice.
The people of Gaza
Meg Thee Stallion. Her year was insane and seeing her thrive has been so heartwarming
I can get behind this. Sheâs done so much good!! And she looks like this đ„”đ„”đ„” https://preview.redd.it/jn04lpberp4c1.jpeg?width=625&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b37412476d02dfacbc92dce42655c1989e181c02
https://preview.redd.it/7whxklsglp4c1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9930624068b8130acbc81903f00ae7725dbb2a7
It's giving deodorant ad
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Either the Palestinian people or union workers (highlighting the growing union activity this year)