Considering how the “pervalanche” has shaken the very foundations of entertainment and politics, maybe Time ought to declare Harvey Weinstein their Man of the Year.
Remember, the designation is for who was most influential any given year, not who was most beneficial. The reason Hitler once got named Man of the Year is that starting another world war that kills tens of millions does indeed tend to have quite a far-reaching influence on people worldwide. While a pervalanche can’t begin to approach being as influential as that, I haven’t seen anything else cause such a ripple effect this year as Weinstein’s downfall.
Oh I know. It’s just that the expectation is for beneficial. A contrarian pick doesn’t mean he’s any less influential, just not what the majority would expect. I find your argument for Weinstein completely sound.
At one point in my youth, I had a copy of Time‘s complete person of the year roster with thumbnails of the said covers. I was intrigued by the people who were chosen, so yes I know that many a nefarious character has made the list.
Of course, from a certain point of view, Harvey Weinstein has been quite beneficial… by dragging boatloads of his fellow creeps down into the mighty dumpster fire of his self-immolation with him. When everyone suffering from the fallout keeps turning out to be somebody most of us never liked anyway, who’s complaining?
Good point. Oh, and you weren’t far off about choosing Weinstein. Turns out his, and his ilk’s, victims have been chosen. “The Silence Breakers” is the catchall term Time is using.
[insert image of Admiral Ackbar regarding Crocoroo disapprovingly]
How do you tell if Ackbar’s expression is disapproving?
Considering how the “pervalanche” has shaken the very foundations of entertainment and politics, maybe Time ought to declare Harvey Weinstein their Man of the Year.
Going for the contrarian pick I see.
Remember, the designation is for who was most influential any given year, not who was most beneficial. The reason Hitler once got named Man of the Year is that starting another world war that kills tens of millions does indeed tend to have quite a far-reaching influence on people worldwide. While a pervalanche can’t begin to approach being as influential as that, I haven’t seen anything else cause such a ripple effect this year as Weinstein’s downfall.
Oh I know. It’s just that the expectation is for beneficial. A contrarian pick doesn’t mean he’s any less influential, just not what the majority would expect. I find your argument for Weinstein completely sound.
At one point in my youth, I had a copy of Time‘s complete person of the year roster with thumbnails of the said covers. I was intrigued by the people who were chosen, so yes I know that many a nefarious character has made the list.
Of course, from a certain point of view, Harvey Weinstein has been quite beneficial… by dragging boatloads of his fellow creeps down into the mighty dumpster fire of his self-immolation with him. When everyone suffering from the fallout keeps turning out to be somebody most of us never liked anyway, who’s complaining?
Good point. Oh, and you weren’t far off about choosing Weinstein. Turns out his, and his ilk’s, victims have been chosen. “The Silence Breakers” is the catchall term Time is using.