TIME's Person of the Year announced

[Dennis 8,391]

3 minutes ago, LM said:

Name a few decent presidents from middle east.

Quite literally zero as of now. If anything middle eastern leaders right now are the enemies of their own people, preventing them from having basic rights especially LGBT communities. But GagaDaily smarties will tell you otherwise

[YourEvilTwin 1,398]

Wait, is this the same issue as Michelle Yeah’s cover? Why are they stealing her thunder like that?

[Dennis 8,391]

1 minute ago, YourEvilTwin said:

Wait, is this the same issue as Michelle Yeah’s cover? Why are they stealing her thunder like that?

I think "Person" is the one on the cover yes, as it's viewed as the more important category than "Icon of the Year"

[Ivannn 1,150]

1 hour ago, myluis617 said:

Idk if I should say this… But there are plenty of countries in the world that have been going through wars. Countries that are filled with people of color. When will they get the attention this white nation has gotten? I really didn’t want to be the one cause I know how much this can stir the pot but I had to be the one.

Idiotic comment. It has nothing to do with race…. 

[FfFfFfFF 58,824]

35 minutes ago, JoanneMonster said:

I dont think they mean that. They are trying to say that Ukraine is getting attention from the world because it is a white european country, no one cares when theres a war in an asian/african country, and thats terrible. 

For example, there’s terror attacks all the time in a lot of countries, but we only seem to care when they happen in america or europe. thats a reality. they would hace never chosen a president from a middle east country in war to be person of the year.

Unites State's support for Ukraine is simply due to the fact that its geopolitical interests align with Ukraine winning against Russia. I agree with both of you as is just naive to think US cares for good or justice, it's just a pragmatic interest that on this ocassion aligns with the right party in the conflict. NATO infamously bombed Belgrad and Novi Sad and destroyed its power grid like Russia destroyed Ukraine's, but there was no sympathy for Serbians back then (both are white). In international conflicts is simply not about right or wrong, but about national interests and agendas. Sadly the push by the entire mainstream media to put Zelensky on such a pedestal feels super artificial and makes the agenda clear (a shame given Russia is by all accounts the bad, imperialistic nation in this conflict). These cover shoots only make pro-Ukraine people more pro-Ukraine and undecided and anti-Ukraine people even more anti-Ukraine because they are very forced.

[Dennis 8,391]

9 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

NATO infamously bombed Belgrad and Novi Sad and destroyed its power grid like Russia destroyed Ukraine's, but there was no sympathy for Serbians back then (both are white).

I understand you read a lot of russian sources, which I also do, but that doesn't mean you have to blindly repeat once again their false claims.

No NATO did not destroy Serbia's power grid. They used carbon bombs specifically to short-circuit the grid for few hours without actually destroying the transformers themselves. Russia however is destroying the power grid to try to achieve a permanent blackout.

Obviously in my opinion, anything that causes discomfort to civilians even for a few hours is bad. But it's highly misleading to claim NATO "destroyed the power grid".

Here are a couple of sources:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/13/kosovo.04/
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/050499kosovo-nato.html

[bpmMonkey 7,851]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

Quite literally zero as of now. If anything middle eastern leaders right now are the enemies of their own people, preventing them from having basic rights especially LGBT communities. But GagaDaily smarties will tell you otherwise

You are a really angry person, aren‘t you? I dearly wish you all the best and hope you’ll get better soon 

[Dennis 8,391]

3 minutes ago, gypsy Hero said:

You are a really angry person, aren‘t you? I dearly wish you all the best and hope you’ll get better soon 

If it comes across that way, maybe I should teach myself to sound less irritated when responding to the most ridiculous takes out there. But you don't have to be passive aggressive though. If you disagree with the claim about middle eastern presidents and their human rights records you can enlighten us. 

[FfFfFfFF 58,824]

9 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I understand you read a lot of russian sources, which I also do, but that doesn't mean you have to blindly repeat once again their false claims.

No NATO did not destroy Serbia's power grid. They used carbon bombs specifically to short-circuit the grid for few hours without actually destroying the transformers themselves. Russia however is destroying the power grid to try to achieve a permanent blackout.

Obviously in my opinion, anything that causes discomfort to civilians even for a few hours is bad. But it's highly misleading to claim NATO "destroyed the power grid".

Here are a couple of sources:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/13/kosovo.04/
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/050499kosovo-nato.html

And the same article talks about the effects of NATO's raids on civilians. Another read on the subject - https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-01.htm

It was this ''they are doing it and its wrong, but when we did it we were right'' tweet that refreshed my memory:

 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

People take this TIME POTY thing so seriously.  It’s not that serious. 

[Dennis 8,391]

10 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

And the same article talks about the effects of NATO's raids on civilians. Another read on the subject - https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-01.htm

It was this ''they are doing it and its wrong, but when we did it we were right'' tweet that refreshed my memory:

 

Again, the action is reprehensible, and I'm not going to defend it.

But it's also important for us to not put two wrongs on the same level if the consequences are not nearly the same. A slap is not a stab. Assault is not murder. 

Especially when it comes to war, proportionality and scale become very important and can make the difference between a tolerable military action and a genocidal action.

Disabling power grid temporarily, with special substance, without destroying it is not the same as destroying the power grid with aim of permanent effect. Accuracy matters here. But anyway this is off-topic for us.

[SpadesToStart 3,853]

That shortlist was atrocious 

[bpmMonkey 7,851]

15 minutes ago, Dennis said:

If it comes across that way, maybe I should teach myself to sound less irritated when responding to the most ridiculous takes out there. But you don't have to be passive aggressive though. If you disagree with the claim about middle eastern presidents and their human rights records you can enlighten us. 

It was just an observation. I usually see you very angrily and relatively lengthy responding to people with different views on topics than you. Therefor it also wasn’t meant passive aggressive, just a general hope for you to get a little more collected when it comes to *controversial* topics. Pretty sure it would help you a lot and make people you fight with more likely to actually listen to your points and may change their views in favor of your believes. 

[Dennis 8,391]

5 minutes ago, gypsy Hero said:

It was just an observation. I usually see you very angrily and relatively lengthy responding to people with different views on topics than you. Therefor it also wasn’t meant passive aggressive, just a general hope for you to get a little more collected when it comes to *controversial* topics. Pretty sure it would help you a lot and make people you fight with more likely to actually listen to your points and may change their views in favor of your believes. 

"People you fight with" "angrily"... Or maybe it's called argument, not necessarily the angry fight you're imagining in your head? Just because you see a lengthy post, doesn't mean it comes from anger or desire to fight. Yes there are some irritating takes and I think any reasonable person would be irritated by the suggestion that we should triage victims based on race or whatever insinuation that was, but when it's needed, I try to make sure I provide a complete explanation to my opinion. It can be lengthy but doesn't mean it's a desire to "fight with others".

Anyway, thanks for your concern. But in return, I hope you also evolve enough in your life to learn to have compassion for people regardless of skin color, and realize that racializing victims even if well-intended is very insensitive.

[Oriane 23,026]

Is it going to be one of these 10-page long threads?