confusedtree:

psychologicalwoman:

confusedtree:

I just saw that Aung San Suu Kyi did in fact manage to beat out Lady Gaga for Time Magazine’s 2013 100 poll by a considerable percentange but the fact that it looked for even an hour or so like Lady Gaga was going to win is thoroughly embarrassing. I cannot believe she even made it that far

Please explain to me how Gaga isn’t influential enough to be beaten by Aung San Suu Kyi?

Aung San Suu Kyi was a political prisoner for about as long as you’ve been alive and brought democracy to a country of roughly 50 million people you dan savage-grade shitwagon

The way the poll’s bracketed though is the candidates were voted on within their fields first, so like… it was guaranteed that one of Lady Gaga, George Clooney, Tina Fey or JK Rowling would make it through to the final four.

Like, it was literally inevitable that it would end up with something like “influential in [entertainment or web pages] vs influential in [something serious]”.

Also it’s an American publication with an American audience. It’s like how the baseball championship is called the World Series. Time’s Most Influential, even though it nominally picks the person who’s influenced the world the most, de facto picks the person who’s influenced western culture the most.

Like if the question “who has made a more valuable contribution to the world” then it’s inarguably Aung San Suu Kyi but the question is “who has been the most influential”… and being influential has no correlation to making a valuable contribution. Like, Hitler was influential, Monty Python was influential, Gandhi was influential. It’s a weird space where you can put those three*.

Gaga’s contribution to the world is massively dwarfed by ASSK’s but it’s undeniable that for better or worse they’re both very influential. Having as many medals as possible redirected towards the more valuable contributor is great but ehhh I just don’t think it’s quite at accusing someone of being a cussvehicle.

* I know it’s kinda phrased weird but yes I know that Monty Python was a group and not a person. “Monty Python was influential” is still a true statement.

(via confusedtree-deactivated2013092)