Climate change
Moderator: bbmods
-
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
Spoilt? Hardly. You can disagree with her Politics but she didn’t choose the award.Jezza wrote:A spoilt Swedish girl wins the award.
The Hong Kong Protestors should been given the award.
I’d be very proud if any of my children did what she did at 15 let alone now.
She hasn’t advocated killing anyone, no one has accused her of sexual abuse or abusing her power unlike a few notable detractors
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
- David
- Posts: 50681
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
Amazing how triggered some right-wingers are over this. She was obviously a good choice by Time’s own criteria, and would have been even if it had been a merit-based award. But whinging about this is like Germaine Greer sooking over Caitlyn Jenner being named "woman of the year" by Glamour magazine (yes, that great publication of record that we all know). Who cares, really? All of these choices are solely about how a magazine chooses to brand itself.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
- think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
I was with you til the woman of the year award but-not because you think I’m a transgender phobic but because what the **** did She do???? Absolutely nothing!David wrote:Amazing how triggered some right-wingers are over this. She was obviously a good choice by Time’s own criteria, and would have been even if it had been a merit-based award. But whinging about this is like Germaine Greer sooking over Caitlyn Jenner being named "woman of the year" by Glamour magazine (yes, that great publication of record that we all know). Who cares, really? All of these choices are solely about how a magazine chooses to brand itself.
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
- David
- Posts: 50681
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
Which made her eminently qualifiable, it seems. Here are a few other Glamour Woman of the Year winners:
2003: Britney Spears
2004: Christina Aguilera
2005: Rachel Stevens
2007: Victoria Beckham
2009: Kylie Minogue
2010: Cheryl Cole
2012: Selena Gomez
2013: Lady Gaga
I rest my case.
2003: Britney Spears
2004: Christina Aguilera
2005: Rachel Stevens
2007: Victoria Beckham
2009: Kylie Minogue
2010: Cheryl Cole
2012: Selena Gomez
2013: Lady Gaga
I rest my case.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
- Posts: 8764
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:04 pm
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54838
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 131 times
- Been liked: 165 times
I agree. She didn't nominate or campaign for this, as far as I can see she isn't the one pushing her own barrow, it's others pushing her forward as a figurehead.David wrote:Amazing how triggered some right-wingers are over this. She was obviously a good choice by Time’s own criteria, and would have been even if it had been a merit-based award. But whinging about this is like Germaine Greer sooking over Caitlyn Jenner being named "woman of the year" by Glamour magazine (yes, that great publication of record that we all know). Who cares, really? All of these choices are solely about how a magazine chooses to brand itself.
As you said, she meets the criteria the magazine set and it's all about them marketing their product, same as Glamour magazine.
Bagging her for it is as pointless as praising her for it.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
- Skids
- Posts: 9940
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:46 am
- Location: ANZAC day 2019 with Dad.
- Has liked: 29 times
- Been liked: 44 times
Some common sense in this. The extremists won't like it, of course.
Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... -is-wrong/
Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... -is-wrong/
Don't count the days, make the days count.
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54838
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 131 times
- Been liked: 165 times
There's a lot of sense in that article. Pity it will be largely ignored.Skids wrote:Some common sense in this. The extremists won't like it, of course.
Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... -is-wrong/
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.