3 ms·

Howard Stern noted once how people who disliked him spent more time listening to him than those who liked him. Kirk seemed to have invested heavily in aggravat

Howard Stern noted once how people who disliked him spent more time listening to him than those who liked him. Kirk seemed to have invested heavily in aggravating people in order to make an audience. It seemed so obvious to me that I don't understand why those who disliked him would waste their time trying to debate him.

aklemm 1y ago
Well then his death proved Stern wrong. Soooo many people in my feeds out of seemingly nowhere talking about much they liked his videos, and that aligns with reports of how much money he made at it.
lostlogin 1y ago
His rallies didn’t seem to be full of people who didn’t like him.
- forinti 1y ago
  Of course. There's a ton of people who want to see their beliefs validated and he offered them this through this false debating. The people who tried to change his mind were blind to the trap he set up. No logic would ever change his message. Of course, he shouldn't have died because of this, but that's another issue.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    The point of debate is not to change the other person's mind. That's very rarely going to happen, and even less commonly immediately. The point of debate is to provide context and information that somebody may not have been aware of. The reason for this is that the views we decide to adopt are not entirely conscious. They're driven by a large number of issues that coalesce on a subconscious level, but that takes time to change. For instance people trend more conservative as they age, but there's no real simple point where you wake up one day and like 'ok, I now officially love guns, babies, and 'Merica.' It's a very gradual process that's driven by things like life experience and the accumulation of knowledge, all processed on a subconscious level. As you age you'll find that you often will think the 'you' of 10 years ago was a naive idiot, and this never really seems to stop. Yet if the 'you' of 10 years from now talked to you today, it's unlikely he could change your mind on a single thing, even though he is literally you. When people are young we naturally have this confidence that the views we hold must be true and just, because we are absolutely certain that they are. And so we if we just had the time and attention, we could convince anybody of their correctness, so long as they remained logical. But over time, one learns that people who may believe the exact opposite of you think the exact same thing, and it's not necessarily the case that one side must be wrong. People, no less intelligent than one another, can see the same evidence and simply come to different conclusions.

aklemm 1y ago

Well then his death proved Stern wrong. Soooo many people in my feeds out of seemingly nowhere talking about much they liked his videos, and that aligns with reports of how much money he made at it.

lostlogin 1y ago

His rallies didn’t seem to be full of people who didn’t like him.

forinti 1y ago
Of course. There's a ton of people who want to see their beliefs validated and he offered them this through this false debating. The people who tried to change his mind were blind to the trap he set up. No logic would ever change his message. Of course, he shouldn't have died because of this, but that's another issue.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  The point of debate is not to change the other person's mind. That's very rarely going to happen, and even less commonly immediately. The point of debate is to provide context and information that somebody may not have been aware of. The reason for this is that the views we decide to adopt are not entirely conscious. They're driven by a large number of issues that coalesce on a subconscious level, but that takes time to change. For instance people trend more conservative as they age, but there's no real simple point where you wake up one day and like 'ok, I now officially love guns, babies, and 'Merica.' It's a very gradual process that's driven by things like life experience and the accumulation of knowledge, all processed on a subconscious level. As you age you'll find that you often will think the 'you' of 10 years ago was a naive idiot, and this never really seems to stop. Yet if the 'you' of 10 years from now talked to you today, it's unlikely he could change your mind on a single thing, even though he is literally you. When people are young we naturally have this confidence that the views we hold must be true and just, because we are absolutely certain that they are. And so we if we just had the time and attention, we could convince anybody of their correctness, so long as they remained logical. But over time, one learns that people who may believe the exact opposite of you think the exact same thing, and it's not necessarily the case that one side must be wrong. People, no less intelligent than one another, can see the same evidence and simply come to different conclusions.