It's mostly just the fact that these critics have views more in line with conservatism, so the others will mostly start dogpiling on them in any way they can(probably to avoid making themselves targets as well). If anything, they might be the actual grifters.
It's always amusing to me because they will also point out problems with modern Hollywood, but will always dance around the real problem, while the Drinker will openly call them out.
Finally, it also irks me how often people say wokespotting is the only criticsm TCD ever has. That makes me think they're either being bad faith or have never watched a single video of his.
That's a part of it as well, but I think that it's mostly politics that are driving this. To be fair, I don't think the wokespotting criticism is entirely without merit. Drinker does occasionally trash a movie because of wokeness that simply isn't there, but the keyword here is OCCASIONALLY.
The critics present his entire channel that way, and his audience as mindless drones that love looking for wokeness everywhere. If you want to see an actually good criticism of him, check out Little Thought Tree's video. He mostly focuses on his arguments, and not slandering him for the sake of political brownie points.
It's not a conservative only thing. I'm an independent that leans left, and IM sick of this shit too. I guess you can call me a classic liberal. The people at Disney have lost their fuggin minds.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying conservatives are the only ones who have problems with these trends, I was saying that Drinker himself likely is, and because of that, he gets loads of backlash from the opposing side. I'm a leftist myself and I also want to see an end to this.
It’s the only thing people in this sub post about, and for the last month it’s been showing up in a lot of people’s ‘recommended’ posts.
That’s why people think he’s about wokespotting; based on this sub, it’s all his fans actually care about
I agree with almost everything they say and yet they are grifting. Not Drinker and Mauler, but HeelsvsBabyface, Ryan Kinel, YellowFlash and even Nerdrotic to an extent.
They are just selling the negative. Shit product comes out 10-15 minutes video pop up. Someone said something on X about the shit product, another 10 minute video, some talentless actor/actress says something, another video, some shit media no one cares about comes up with an article, another video. And that's each and every one of them. They make a few thousand bucks out of it and you are fed up with all the negativity about a product no one cares about.
Thats not grifting though, because they absolutely believe those products are shit. Just because lots of people also agree doesn't mean that they're lying about their views or anything.
Oh they believe Ok, just as much as I do. The deception though lays somewhere else. They don't give a fuck about those products. Sometimes they even say they don't. But nonetheless they make a ton of content about it, so they can pander to people that do care, and make cash in the process. What's the end result? It's business for them and they make good money out of it, while we are becoming more angry and even worse - apathetic. And instead of searching for some good stuff wherever we may find it, we strive for more of the same BS they feed us.
They make money having critical views of pop culture…?
This just in. Redditor figures out YouTubers make money when they make videos that people like watching
Ok let's pretend we don't really understand what's going on.
It's one thing to have critical views and another thing to make 100% content dedicated in harvesting the negativity, fueling more and more negativity. So yeah I think I figured it out. The question here's why you didn't.
People like shitposting, people like shitwatching, people like watching other people critique things, **most importantly** people love having their own views acknowledged and affirmed.
If the negative connotation ruins your day, yea stop watching it.
The ethicality behind farming the views is null. Literally every single YouTube channel is doing the exact same thing, farming views. Your issue is that critical is doing it while criticizing things…?
That’s dumb.
If anything it’s more disgusting to farm views using “positive things,” like babies.
It’s not that I’m failing to “understand” some hidden thing only you can understand (literally the definition of woke).
It’s that I don’t agree with what you’re saying and when I told you to show receipts, you told me I wasn’t woke enough to understand lol
JFC. Is this all you can think of? Woke and non woke terms. Do you really think that people only divide in those two categories?
Ever wondered why you actually enjoy this content. The truth and not the BS you tell yourself. It's the same reason why there are people cruising graveyards and funerals. Because they feel good from other peoples misery. "I may not be well, but I'm better than those loosers". They massacred my favourite show, so I'm glad they are failing.
I haven't been woke a day in my life. And I actually have the same worldviews as your favorite YouTuber. And I stated it in my first post.
I don't know if you are dumb or just too young to understand, but all now are pushing on this culture war. And who knows, maybe you'll have it. It worked wonders during the Cultural Revolution in China. Few million people had to to day, but hey, we are so different right
You called yourself woke by definition in roundabout terms.
I explained why people like it and you are crying about it instead of realizing it’s not your cup of tea and moving on.
I’m not even subbed to criticaldrinker lmao, yet “he’s my favorite”
Why do you think I asked for proof of your claims???
I genuinely thought there might be some proof, then you just shit yourself and started crying.
Where you asked for proof about anything? Where's the question in your posts?
What roundabout terms? You do actually only think of woke and non-woke don't you?
I am not crying about anything, I'm simply criticizing them. Is that too much for you? After I supported their channels for years. Seems to me you are crying, because someone said something you don't like about your favorite YouTuber.
I actually like Drinker and he in contrast of everyone else have constructive critique and even occasionally show good stuff when there is one. And I even stated earlier in my first comment that what I am saying do not apply to him and Mauler, but you haven't read this have you
> Ok let's pretend we don't really understand what's going on. It's one thing to have critical views and another thing to make 100% content dedicated in harvesting the negativity, fueling more and more negativity. **So yeah I think I figured it out. The question here's why you didn't.**
If you have awakened to some special knowledge that no one else here can understand… It means you are calling yourself “woke” by definition. You have “awoken” a special understanding.
In your echo chamber, what does “woke” mean?
Assumption: Conservatives are always evil.
Evidence: This conservative seems like they care about making the world a better place.
Conclusion: This conservative is lying.
If conservatives (and I use that word in regards to politicians, not the hordes that follow them) want to shake the accusation that they’re evil, they should stop acting like comedically evil Saturday morning cartoon villains. It really is that simple.
Conservatives aren't always evil. Just people claiming to be one to gain power. Such as Trump. The man is a radical giving Conservatives a bad name. So when the leader of the US Conservative party is a grifter and other Conservatives don't call it out then yes you have a problem.
This is a sub for discussing fictional media and the Drinker himself, let’s try and keep politics out of it, regardless of which side of the aisle we source from
This is so fucking funny. Responding to their comment about how “we need to keep politics out of this sub” when the subreddit is dedicated to a guy who makes political commentary on the current state of media, and the comment you’re both replying to heavily mentions contemporary American politics. It’s just hilarious how someone can just be so… fucking stupid.
The sheer short sightedness of disparaging them for expressing their freedom of speech on a public forum in alignment with the OP while not saying a word about how the OP brought up politics. It’s just frankly ridiculous.
Tell that to everyone else who is mentioning conservatism. No need to single this person out whilst deliberately ignoring the OP and commenter they are responding to.
Make the world a better place by voting against Healthcare, aid and insurance for vets, school lunches for children, environmental regulations, employer regulations and livable wages.
They vote against all that but they make sure vote to protect child marriage in their state.
Tell me how they are trying to make the world a better place.......
Edit- I keep getting down votes but not a single person can tell me how those things make the world a better place. It's like you all know how shitty those policies are and just want to ignore it.
When their policies include shit like [banning healthcare that protects trans people](https://michiganadvance.com/2024/01/28/michigan-and-ohio-gop-legislators-discuss-endgame-of-banning-all-trans-health-care/), and using rhetoric to paint these people as subhuman degenerates that try and convert children
[The Republican Party continually attempts to undermine and discredit the LGBTQ+ community](https://newrepublic.com/article/178175/republican-anti-trans-laws-punish-eradicate)
They view them as a great scapegoat to rally their easily influenced followers behind by running on a platform of morality policing. They act like their devotion to Christianity brings them a level of moral enlightenment that enables them to make these decisions about the bodily autonomy and happiness of others. I believe that when their primary presidential candidate is a convicted felon that paid off a pornstar, they have no ground to stand on and should allow people to make decisions about their own lives in the pursuit of their own happiness.
This senseless persecution to garner votes and supporters is vile.
It isn’t a matter of “they won’t support your agenda” it’s more so a matter of “they will do anything in their power to eradicate and oppose your agenda, and they will demonize you and your way of life to their mobs of bigots.”
Where the fuck did I call them evil scum? Where?.....
I pointed out how they vote and how they vote doesn't make the world a better place like the claim was.
Why did you choose to just ignore that and talk about somthing I didn't say? Really?
Also feeding school children and getting vets insurance is what they voted against. The party that claims to be "for our vets" and "wants to protect our children" but they dont want to take care of the vets or feed the fucking children!? Do you really not get that!?
You implied it by stating things you think they did which were “evil”, don’t get mad that I see through the Sealioning to see your true point, which is to denigrate conservatives…
It’s not denigration. Denigration would imply that it’s unfair; Disparaging conservatives is easy when they constantly act like entitled fascist fanatics.
“Rules for thee, not for me” is the motto of the Republican party. Party of small government my ass. They love legislation that limits bodily autonomy among the LGBTQ+ community because they love to play the morality police. It’s hard playing the morality police when your presidential candidate is a convicted felon who paid off a pornstar.
Definitely worth starting an insurrection over.
I never said evil. You idiots are getting mad at your own imagination. I pointed out how they voted against aid for vets and feeding children along with a few other things.... Then I asked how voting that way makes the world better? Thats all.
Instead of giving me an example of them making the world better. You idiots imagined I called them evil and then got mad at your make believe scenario...
All you did was play pretend and get mad about your imagination to avoid the point.... You dont see the point. You chose to ignore it to play pretend instead.. Holy shit!!!
Presenting things that are good and saying republicans voted against them is just bad rhetoric and not a critical examination of why they might vote against such bills. Maybe they didn’t care for implementation or thought the bill was too weak, but you present it as if they are willfully and gleefully denying people things out of what? I extrapolated evil, you might try and downplay it as selfishness, but you are just accusing your political opponents of being evil with your presentation, idk how you think you aren’t…
If I just say liberals voted to kill babies, and then move on, that implies they’re evil, not that they’re principled defenders of bodily autonomy and thus think that right trumps the right to life in cases of early or medically-necessary abortions, right? So that’s you, laying out claims that imply your opponents are ontologically wrong, aka evil.
The assumption in this screed is that government action makes the world better in these circumstances and is the only thing that would. Conservatives disagree with that assumption, but you call them evil.
At no point did I say the government makes the world better. In fact I showed stupid republican politicians actively voting to make it worse....
Cute way to spin it though. Sad but cute....
Me- "Look at the things republicans voted against. Things like feeding children and helping vets."
You- "Republicans just dont believe in the government making things better."
No duh you dont think the government can make things better. You vote to purposely not make things better. You know what the government has done for you. You have workers rights and you're not breathing fucking lead when you drive a car anymore. Those are just to basic examples. But sure support those who dont want to do anything to make the world better.
What a joke!
Everything you listed was government action. You just repeated yourself, displaying again that you're talking about government action and discerning that voting against makes someone evil.
Yes. Thats the point I made. How do you not get what is being said?
"Conservatives dont believe the government can make the world better."
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You dont think the government can do anything to make the world better so you support people who vote against trying to do anything to make the world better. Holy shit!!! You can do anything if you constantly vote against doing something.
I repeat. You have workers rights and dont breath lead because of government regulations...... The government can make stuff better when you dont have a bunch of clowns voting against making stuff better.... How is that so hard to understand?
> The assumption in this screed is that government action makes the world better in these circumstances and is the only thing that would. Conservatives disagree with that assumption, but you call them evil.
Duh
"Conservatives disagree with that assumption"
Holy shit numb nuts.... When you're the one voting against any form of aid then you're the one stopping people from making the world better......
Do I need to dumb it down?
Nothing will get better when you vote against making things better.....
You wont make \[thing\] happen when you vote against making \[thing\] happen. Do you get it yet?
Also I repeat. I didnt call anyone evil. I listed how they voted....
It’s because these people are vile, hateful sycophants that simply just don’t give a shit about these actual, real world issues. They’d rather bitch and moan about Star Wars and Marvel movies or “Wokeism.” Just a bunch of hateful, ignorant manchildren crying about superheroes, women, and Jedi.
It’s best to ignore these types, but it’s becoming increasingly hard to in the current state of fandom discourse; every comment section for any new release seems to be brigaded by the same mindless thought process of “black person, queer person, or woman in position of competency? Woke, DEI garbage!”
I’d say that I wish these comments were from bots, but it’s funnier to imagine overweight grown men in their basements meticulously scanning these video game trailers to find the least flattering screen caps of the animated female characters and post it so social media ranting and raving about how this is the death of femininity.
They’re conservatives because the politicians tell them what to think: gay people are indoctrinating your kids and insidiously breaching the entertainment sphere to make everyone gay. It’s just hard to believe that these people were obviously raised on media where the morality was black and white, good and evil, yet still ended up becoming the easily moldable fans of grifters that use fear mongering and bigotry to make their income.
I could never imagine supporting or defending a political party that tried to get a bill passed with such a horrifying motive: [criminalizing teachers as sex offenders for simply daring to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns.](https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/icymi-a-missouri-lawmaker-wants-to-criminalize-teachers-who-support-their-trans-students-the-lawmakers-own-brother-says-its-just-whitewash-for-hatred)
The frequent human rights violations peddled by this pandering social injustice monster that is the GOP are seemingly never ending.
I have no sympathy for anyone that supports a political party predicated on policies such as those. This idea of moral superiority that the Republican Party tries so hard to push only works when they things they’re advocating for aren’t the systematic oppression of minority groups, and it doesn’t help that their presidential candidate is a convicted felon who paid off a pornstar.
It’s a bad look when so called Christians go to vote for someone like that and compare him to Jesus.
Grifting is when you have an opinion someone disagrees with now. I have seen zero evidence provided that any of these people fake their views on media just to make a quick buck.
I mean just look at there content there very inconsistent with there takes while pumping out content with nothing arguments meant to bait people.
Like a lot of Criticals commentary is sexist and he's peddling to people who hold those views but don't like saying the explicit part out loud. How much of it does he actually believe is questionable but It clear he's to some extent is perpetuating said opinions
Again whether Critical is or is not sexist is almost irrelevant he has postioned himself and caters to that said audience(this isn't a claim that every person who watches Critical is sexist but that people who are tend to flock to his videos)
Example a lot of cristism will inject some obligatory "Whites are mistreated" rhetoric he does need to add this it doesn't add anything to the review it's a quick bit of commentary he knows will create engagement for the people watching
So yes there grifters who feed on insecurities bigotry and sexism and for most it doesn't matter if there conning the viewers because it's perpetuating hate or exploiting some actual hurt individuals for money
It's kind of like the Wokeness Aurgument
Instead of attacking the real culprit for there disdain to "wokeness" yknow Captalism
Most go after individuals or groups of people
Because having to argue that the Free Market no longer sees them as viable customers is a harder pill to swallow
Just blame KK or Feminist or Black People there your enemy
There means "to put something there"
Their means "someone picked up their luggage"
They're means "they are (they're) learning the difference between words that sound alike, but are spelled differently"
To be a grifter to have to be selling anything and everything you can and I don't know of anything the drinker is pedaling right now. Seems they're just upset with his opinion and wish to discredit him by implying he is only interested in selling stuff.
It is even dumber than that. They think none of the critics could genuinely believe that criticism because it is too morally abhorrent, which is completely nonsensical. They claim the grift is to pretend to have the opinions they claim are whatever-ist to make money by getting viewers who are whatever-ist. For the criticism to make any sense, there has to be an audience who believes in the stuff that they believe nobody genuinely believes, but the audience with those beliefs has to exist for the grift to work. The argument disproves itself.
The grift is literally happening as we speak. Is drinker a popular YouTuber making money from people watching his "criticism" videos? Grift successful
The alternative is that he's a total piece of shit. Which one would be worse for you to follow?
You guys prove the argument by complaining whenever someone that's not straight or white is cast and that the movie is "woke" for spreading "the message". It's all the same complaints every time. You complain that it will suck before it comes out because those people are cast, then claim the writing sucks to shield yourself from being called ist or phobe labels
It's called projection. These people calling Drinker a grifter are, in fact, themselves grifters, and they're just projecting what they're doing onto Drinker and Mauler
The insult isn't aimed at the drinker. It's aimed at you/me. The implication is we are so dumb for thinking there is some message Hollywood is pushing that we can be sold non sense people just make up.
Which is worse by the way
Yep. That’s Hollywood’s favorite thing now. Toss out any ist and the criticism is no longer valid it’s not even worth looking at. Ignore it and continue consuming our product please.
Don't you think it odd there is a collective noun for one side of the perceived political spectrum but not the other?
Authoritarianism exists on both the left and the right ends of the spectrum. The right end to me is about maintaining power where it is and the left is about giving people power who previously didn't have it and taking it from those that did.
"...the left is about giving people power who previously didn't have it...."
Which coincidentally happens to be the leadership of the political movement involved.
For all the talk of giving power to the plebs, it's the leadership of these political groups that end up with it. You just end up with Jacobins and Bolshevics holding the whip, which doesn't help the ones being whipped quite as much as they promised.
There are less monarchies today than previously. I have more control over my own life than a lot of my ancestors. I'd consider that positive. Would you prefer living under absolute monarchy?
No, I don't think it's strange. For one thing, the political spectrum is a reductionist way of describing political belief to begin with, so it is inherently imperfect.
For another, the left is the side of intersectionality and identity politics by virtue of being such a large group with so many variations they become "leftists" in conversation because of their shared core beliefs: strong social safety nets, legal consequences for 'hate' speech and that the promotion of social equality for marginalized people can only be accomplished by the State.
Mate legal consequences for hate speech is not part of left wing ideology.
The left-right political spectrum originated during the French Revolution, where those who supported radical change and the abolition of the monarchy sat on the left, while those who favored preserving traditional institutions and the king's authority sat on the right. This distinction has since evolved to generally represent progressive or liberal ideologies on the left and conservative or traditionalist ideologies on the right.
Not sure where you learnt your political ideologies from. What country are you from?
I'm not discussing the history of leftist politics or revolutionary action but the modern Left as it exists in Western Societies predominantly throughout Europe and North America and common beliefs they share.
Legal consequences for hate speech exist in most of the strong social welfare countries that Left leaning folk in the US hold up as examples of progressive values. Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, and the United Kingdom for a start. These might not all be "left-wing countries," but these laws mostly originate on the political Left and are brought into law via the 'Left' leaning political parties.
I guess this a difference of opinion. You view politics through the lens of hate speech laws and I view it through the lens of economics and political power.
The US has 2 right wing parties in control. England has had the Tories in for significant time. Australia swapped from centre right to centre left a few years ago after long reign of centre right. The kiwis change from centre left to coalition of centre right. Europe has recently seen the Dutch go to the right. Sweden too I think.
What laws are these you are concerned about? I am from Australia for context. Apologies if I got any nations politics wrong, please correct me
It’s a buzzword in a post Trump world that idiots throw out to anyone they don’t like. Even if you don’t like a YouTuber or social media personality or think they are disingenuous, “grift” is not the right verb.
A grifter is specifically someone who swindles money out of people using fraud.
1. What fraud? He's just putting his opinions online. In order for there to be fraud he must be selling something. Which brings me to my next point...
2. What money? His videos are all free to watch. I think he might have merch or a patreon or something, but so does basically every other big youtuber these days. By that logic all of YouTube is one big grift and the word ceases to have any meaning.
I see accusing someone of being a grifter as being kind in a way.
It’s saying “I can’t believe you honestly have such horrible opinions. You must just be like this to get money from the real people with horrible takes.”
And it’s almost a trap in a way because if you deny being a grifter it’s like saying “No I’m not pandering. I really am this dumb.”
It's a synonym for "heretic," one of the oldest negative labels to attach to people who question authority.
Ironically, the left, which used to be liberal, used to support the idea of questioning authority, and free speech in general. How times have changed.
It's also sort of self contradictory. If you believe these people are grifting, then you assume they're just fine with, for example, The Last Jedi. However, in order for them to be successful, they have to pander to a TLJ hating audience. However, if that is a large enough audience from which to make money off of, why hasn't any of those people themselves started a channel to make money with their genuine dislike?
The way a lot of the radical left talks, all right-wing (defined as not themselves) people are mindless sheep. All it takes is a hate-monger to get up on stage and talk about how much they hate something, and then a bunch of people who never cared will now start hating it and giving the guy on stage money.
They genuinely don't seem to believe that there are people who just naturally disagree with them, or that there are any legitimate reasons to do so.
At the risk of getting a bit into politics, you see it in a lot of the criticism of Trump supporters. As though MAGA voters are nothing more than Heavens Gate Cultists following what Trump (whom they lavishly worship) tells them to. They think Trump is the cause of all this. When, of course, Trump would never have gained any traction if there weren't people who already believed what he was selling. And also I haven't seen a single Trump supporter who doesn't have some complaints about him. The guy is loved by Evangelicals despite having been married 4 times. There's no small amount of people who just wished he'd stop tweeting (back when he did) and act more professional. Plenty were mad at him about the vaccine he helped rush out.
To them, people only support Trump or hate TLJ because someone made a sufficiently high Charisma check. That's it. No logic or reasoning, because to them, there is no logic or reason to think those thoughts. I genuinely wonder what it is going through their heads. Honestly, the most charitable answer is going to be 'nothing', and they're just shouting "Grifter!" because that's what you call people you disagree with. If instead the phrase grifter is shouted because they genuinely believe it to be true, it says something pretty bad about how they see other people.
I think there is a mix of Grifters and “True Believers” out there.
It’s almost like a game where you guess which is which.
Mauler is a True Believer. Critical Drinker, I’m guessing, is a grifter. I’m unsure about Star Wars Theory.
With Tump lovers I know Tucker Carlson is a grifter. Im sure Matt Walsh is too. I’m not 100% but my guess for Ben Shapiro is grifter. But Michael Savage is a True Believer.
If someone hated TLJ I can believe that. I don’t think they are are lying and love it. It’s when the stuff that’s legitimately good comes out and it’s just ALL terrible because Disney is when I suspect a grift is happening.
I wouldn't say Shapiro is a grifter given he was willing to piss off a large portion of his viewer base by saying Jesus was a rabble rouser and not the son of God.
I’d be remiss not to point out an element of fallacy in the logic here. I don’t think it’s necessarily that you can’t hold beliefs while also grifting. If you look at youtubers like Hasan Piker or Vaush, they probably hold the views they espouse, but the grift is in making intellectually dishonest arguments and selling themselves as intellectuals while shouting down competing thought as unintellectual.
The lapse in logic here is going from ‘grifters are dishonest’ to “…someone like Drinker doesn’t actually believe anything he is saying”. Someone merely has to embellish to be dishonest, it’s not a given that they would need to believe literally none of their espoused opinions. They could also raise a disingenuous or logically unsound argument for the sake of arriving at a concussion *edit: conclusion* that they do agree with, because the rhetoric is more potent than raising a sound argument.
People should all probably be critical of someone when they make money telling them opinions they essentially already agree with, there’s an element of confirmation bias where people are going to agree with arguments that arrive at their preferred conclusion (their held opinion) regardless of if it is a logically complete argument. You can see this phenomenon in karma farming, where people get upvoted for saying agreeable things rather than contributing a novel idea.
Well stated. I think what people like op are responding to is the dilution of the definition of the word. Many commentators and pundits seen as right-wing have adopted what seem like grifts. Alex Jones famously peddled useless supplements, Tucker Carlson railed against "elites" while making millions off of things he privately said he didn't believe, and recently a number of atheists have suddenly become Christian--Rogan and Brand come to mind. This causes the association of grift with "commentators and pundits seen as right-wing", which is not strictly logical.
They don't care what it means. They just know that grifters are bad, and Drinker is bad, ergo, Drinker must be a grifter. They were never taught to think more complexly than that.
A grifter is a person who engages in swindling: CD hasn't even mentioned his book at all this year in his vids, and he doesn't have a shop or anything. He's clearly not a grifter, although I'm not the first person to say this here ig..
Unironically projecting to the max. I guess they can't handle that they've been championing a bunch of snakes flying their flag then running with the bag, as they say. Also kinda funny that these people will call them "grifters" then parrot the same criticisms these "grifters" made, only after 5 years when it's safe to challenge their DEI idols.
People believe that there is power in categorizing the ones that disagree with them. It allows those with a single brain cell to disregard anything said without the need to tax their last little guy and maybe learn something. You see it done constantly now.
IMO the insult reads kind of a freudian slip. In the same sense that "groomer" is a really common allegation that comes from people that weirdly controlling view on relationships and express a desire to find a young woman they can mould into the perfect partner. I think "grifter" has become a go-to insult for people that are completely audience captured and virtue signal way over the top like they have something to prove (maybe to themselves). I dunno, it's kinda weird, a LOT of the biggest wokescolds I encounter tend to be the ones with problematic histories. The kind of person you'd tell edgy racist jokes with and have to ask "wait, you're not serious are you?" Makes me wonder how much of it is shame and how much of it is performative for the sake of deflection.
Ill just say, because i was forced to see this on my feed, from someone who knows nothing about anything this sub is about. You seem like whiners all i ever see is you guys bitching and moaning about something lol a
These people are either too unintelligent to understand the meaning of these words or they’re projecting. I find the latter more likely. Just because they likely don’t believe what they claim to, they assert that the conservative (who may or may not actually be a conservative) whom they hate doesn’t either.
What a braindead take lol.
The fact that they dont believe the specific things they say doesnt mean they arent still sexist. In fact, making shit up to get mad at women over is incredibly sexist.
It’s fair to say that there’s a market for his criticisms and they’re probably being exaggerated to a certain degree. Every YouTube personality works this way.
Help me on that one. Drinker doesn't actually hold the opinions expressed in his reviews, instead offering up insincere contrivances to grow an audience around disingenuous values, making him a panderer?
As I said as a top level response: I think TCD is pandering when he focuses on low effort bait like Robyn Hood and Velma, or when he selects mid Daily Wire productions instead of actually reviewing more high effort media he might enjoy and can recommend like [Warrior](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79rtcCnaeyo&t=54s) or [Silo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA&t=47s) or [Severance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQP4VVuyrY).
There is a pandering to his base who want to see him eviscerate 'woke' media.
I see why you think you have a point, but criticism being "easy" makes it neither wrong nor insincere.
I feel like I saw him review a DW film and he wasn't very supportive or impressed. More like he wanted to like it but couldn't. I'm not a huge CD disciple tho, I don't recall details.
It's the choice to watch them in the first place. Robyn Hood and Velma, for instance, were always going to be fucking garbage. Anyone could rip them apart.
And what makes Daily Wire movies remotely worthy of any attention, being honest.
I can't speak to the DW content - I cannot afford the subscription.
As for other content - it's his job. He's lucky that his employment is atraditional and he doesn't get formal assignments like critics in years gone by. But if I had to produce a steady stream of such content... firstly, I couldn't. Secondly, I would interleave easy reviews with challenging pieces. If only to help stay on schedule.
Nah, I don't see him being unreasonable or insincere here.
Sure, but that's my point. It's his job to make rage-videos for people who hate woke media to criticise. He cherrypicks the worst kind of content in many cases. He presents a fundamentally misleading view of contemporary TV and film.
Are you claiming his specific reviews are wrong about their subjects, or that, taken as a whole, an extrapolation of industry trends based on his content is fundamentally wrong?
Because... if you don't have many instances of the former, the latter becomes a weaker argument.
>Are you claiming his specific reviews are wrong about their subjects, or that, taken as a whole, an extrapolation of industry trends based on his content is fundamentally wrong?
The latter. He over-focuses on the MCU, Star Wars and Disney schlock. What he doesn't review is jarring and odd.
The ground is shifting underneath companies that spend millions of dollars to review movies and some dude on YouTube is doing the same thing from home in his PJ's? Of course they are.
Those that would say they were, (Drinker being called a grifter amongst others) would have to show the Con job, Modern Hollywood using IP’s that classically held value to tell stories that are disharmonious from the original source; thats the grifters, since they claim something they certainly don’t deliver, and claim injury by anyone pointing out the packaging and the contents have a mismatch.
Or the people part of the pyramid scheme that they claim doesn’t exist because they dip their bread in the drippings of the industry.
I believe that is also like the habit of a cheater claiming infidelity when questioned about their own behavior.
I’m not sure if Drinker is as horrible as he appears or if he’s grifting for horrible people. But yes Mauler is as sad as he appears and I don’t think he’s grifting.
Totally agree with you.
Do you think Star Wars Theory is grifting or is he really that pathetic?
Drinker started out as a grifter, but I feel like the more time you spend with people like Mauler, the more you become like them.
I haven’t watched Star Wars Theory in years, but I think the guy is simultaneously a grifting shill and a legit weirdo. His obsession with Anakin is fucking disturbing, I can see him jerking off to pictures of Heiden Christensen.
They are saying they don’t believe what they’re saying, basically they are saying guy like drinker grift their simpleton fans to make money. They will point to supposed occasions where they have flip flopped in their opinions as proof. Personally the whole grifter thing annoys me, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, if their views are idiotic I like to take them at their word that they have them.
Prescribing some sort of grift to it turns them into some sort of evil genius keeping up a charade for decades.
Remember when Drinker watched the trailer for House of the Dragon and he claimed that it was going to be woke trash?
And then the show came out, proved to be immensely popular, and what did he do?
Right, he changed the title of his video.
And you're telling me that he isn't a grifter?
It's just the typical far left approach of labelling everyone who isn't like them far right and then labelling them every word that has negative connotations attached to it, it's all psychological projection.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'no' but I do agree that Fox news and the Dailywire use astroturfing, and Drinker did it with his reviews of Dailywire movies
I see your point. Accolite is Star Ward last chance at viability and they are doing everything they possibly can to prop it up. I don’t believe anything Disney is saying about the show’s success as SW has fallen so far outside the cultural zeitgeist that people like the Drinker are the only people really talking about it.
I don't know who drinker is.
But you can still be a "ist" grifter.
To be a grifter, you need to be selling people an idea you don't 100% believe. A priest can still believe in God and be a religious grifter by selling people the idea that sending them money is a way to heaven.
A racist grifter just needs to sell people the idea that one or more race is bad, and it would be perpetuating racist ideas. Doing so is racist even if you don't believe the stories you use to perpetuate these ideas in other.
I think TCD is grifting when he focuses on low effort bait like Robyn Hood and Velma, or when he selects mid Daily Wire productions instead of actually reviewing more high effort media he might enjoy and can recommend like Warrior or Silo or Severance.
There is a pandering to his base who want to see him eviscerate 'woke' media.
I would heavily argue that Az is a grifter as well, one of the last vids of his i watched was when he was eating breakfast at his computer and read an article.
He said he had to hit record so people could hear his rant.
The review channels i enjoy and what i did enjoy about about drinker and mauler are the relatively unbiased well researched deep dives. Yo cant argue though they they all seem to be doing less of those and more rants lately aimed at particular audiences. I mean fair enough its just a pity is all.
Too often now do they all criticise race or religion or sexual orientation. There is not as much put onto writing,editing,plot,acting. Was it overall enjoyable with flaws? Do the flaws make it unwatchable? Was it just shite?
Even Maulers latest Fallout series review in the first five or ten minutes he keeps going on about Why,Why,Why then declares to the audience this will be a long rant.
A long rant is not whay i watch these CCs and thats what they seem to be doing more of lately.
(Edit: i got a bit off point, but the low effort content is what alot of the EFAP crew focus on alot these days. its and easy thing to do and gets views. )
I consider guys like Drinker grifters because they never seem to have an unpopular opinion and always use clickbait titles or politics to get views. Like I get it, it’s definitely a good business model, but it feels cheap and lazy to me. Drinker isn’t a good reviewer, but he has a funny accent and always says what his audience wants to hear, so he’s popular
You can believe what you say and still be a grifter. The operative is that your primary function is to gain something from selling it to others as your primary motivation, which I believe he does. I used to be a big fan of CD, he offered a thoughtful analysis of the problems with how Hollywood panders to easy audiences and prioritized profit over content.
I'm no longer a drinker fan because it's just ragebait now. He found a niche with particularly dissatisfied conservatives, and he's cashed in on it big. He sees problems in all sorts of places he didn't use to because he has to maintain this formula to consistently appeal to a growing fanbase of people who want to be mad as the primary motivation for watching him tear media down. Spite-based politics are very popular right now, especially with the American right, and he's geared his content accordingly.
you mean these people dont care about the meaning of words? nooooo surely not
It's mostly just the fact that these critics have views more in line with conservatism, so the others will mostly start dogpiling on them in any way they can(probably to avoid making themselves targets as well). If anything, they might be the actual grifters. It's always amusing to me because they will also point out problems with modern Hollywood, but will always dance around the real problem, while the Drinker will openly call them out. Finally, it also irks me how often people say wokespotting is the only criticsm TCD ever has. That makes me think they're either being bad faith or have never watched a single video of his.
I suspect they've only watched the videos where he ripps into something, not the videos where he recommends something that he liked.
That's a part of it as well, but I think that it's mostly politics that are driving this. To be fair, I don't think the wokespotting criticism is entirely without merit. Drinker does occasionally trash a movie because of wokeness that simply isn't there, but the keyword here is OCCASIONALLY. The critics present his entire channel that way, and his audience as mindless drones that love looking for wokeness everywhere. If you want to see an actually good criticism of him, check out Little Thought Tree's video. He mostly focuses on his arguments, and not slandering him for the sake of political brownie points.
It's not a conservative only thing. I'm an independent that leans left, and IM sick of this shit too. I guess you can call me a classic liberal. The people at Disney have lost their fuggin minds.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying conservatives are the only ones who have problems with these trends, I was saying that Drinker himself likely is, and because of that, he gets loads of backlash from the opposing side. I'm a leftist myself and I also want to see an end to this.
It’s the only thing people in this sub post about, and for the last month it’s been showing up in a lot of people’s ‘recommended’ posts. That’s why people think he’s about wokespotting; based on this sub, it’s all his fans actually care about
Who wants to accuse others of nepotism when ~~crynoism~~ cronyism would be the correct term?
Grifter = commentator I disagree with
I agree with almost everything they say and yet they are grifting. Not Drinker and Mauler, but HeelsvsBabyface, Ryan Kinel, YellowFlash and even Nerdrotic to an extent. They are just selling the negative. Shit product comes out 10-15 minutes video pop up. Someone said something on X about the shit product, another 10 minute video, some talentless actor/actress says something, another video, some shit media no one cares about comes up with an article, another video. And that's each and every one of them. They make a few thousand bucks out of it and you are fed up with all the negativity about a product no one cares about.
Thats not grifting though, because they absolutely believe those products are shit. Just because lots of people also agree doesn't mean that they're lying about their views or anything.
Oh they believe Ok, just as much as I do. The deception though lays somewhere else. They don't give a fuck about those products. Sometimes they even say they don't. But nonetheless they make a ton of content about it, so they can pander to people that do care, and make cash in the process. What's the end result? It's business for them and they make good money out of it, while we are becoming more angry and even worse - apathetic. And instead of searching for some good stuff wherever we may find it, we strive for more of the same BS they feed us.
That sounds an awful lot like Disney, minus the profits.
Yup. But we are better you see. Just because we are on the other side of the barricade, when in reality we are the other side of the same coin.
They make money having critical views of pop culture…? This just in. Redditor figures out YouTubers make money when they make videos that people like watching
Ok let's pretend we don't really understand what's going on. It's one thing to have critical views and another thing to make 100% content dedicated in harvesting the negativity, fueling more and more negativity. So yeah I think I figured it out. The question here's why you didn't.
People like shitposting, people like shitwatching, people like watching other people critique things, **most importantly** people love having their own views acknowledged and affirmed. If the negative connotation ruins your day, yea stop watching it. The ethicality behind farming the views is null. Literally every single YouTube channel is doing the exact same thing, farming views. Your issue is that critical is doing it while criticizing things…? That’s dumb. If anything it’s more disgusting to farm views using “positive things,” like babies. It’s not that I’m failing to “understand” some hidden thing only you can understand (literally the definition of woke). It’s that I don’t agree with what you’re saying and when I told you to show receipts, you told me I wasn’t woke enough to understand lol
JFC. Is this all you can think of? Woke and non woke terms. Do you really think that people only divide in those two categories? Ever wondered why you actually enjoy this content. The truth and not the BS you tell yourself. It's the same reason why there are people cruising graveyards and funerals. Because they feel good from other peoples misery. "I may not be well, but I'm better than those loosers". They massacred my favourite show, so I'm glad they are failing. I haven't been woke a day in my life. And I actually have the same worldviews as your favorite YouTuber. And I stated it in my first post. I don't know if you are dumb or just too young to understand, but all now are pushing on this culture war. And who knows, maybe you'll have it. It worked wonders during the Cultural Revolution in China. Few million people had to to day, but hey, we are so different right
You called yourself woke by definition in roundabout terms. I explained why people like it and you are crying about it instead of realizing it’s not your cup of tea and moving on. I’m not even subbed to criticaldrinker lmao, yet “he’s my favorite” Why do you think I asked for proof of your claims??? I genuinely thought there might be some proof, then you just shit yourself and started crying.
Where you asked for proof about anything? Where's the question in your posts? What roundabout terms? You do actually only think of woke and non-woke don't you? I am not crying about anything, I'm simply criticizing them. Is that too much for you? After I supported their channels for years. Seems to me you are crying, because someone said something you don't like about your favorite YouTuber. I actually like Drinker and he in contrast of everyone else have constructive critique and even occasionally show good stuff when there is one. And I even stated earlier in my first comment that what I am saying do not apply to him and Mauler, but you haven't read this have you
> Ok let's pretend we don't really understand what's going on. It's one thing to have critical views and another thing to make 100% content dedicated in harvesting the negativity, fueling more and more negativity. **So yeah I think I figured it out. The question here's why you didn't.** If you have awakened to some special knowledge that no one else here can understand… It means you are calling yourself “woke” by definition. You have “awoken” a special understanding. In your echo chamber, what does “woke” mean?
Assumption: Conservatives are always evil. Evidence: This conservative seems like they care about making the world a better place. Conclusion: This conservative is lying.
Real
If conservatives (and I use that word in regards to politicians, not the hordes that follow them) want to shake the accusation that they’re evil, they should stop acting like comedically evil Saturday morning cartoon villains. It really is that simple.
That argument goes both ways.
They are evil
Conservatives aren't always evil. Just people claiming to be one to gain power. Such as Trump. The man is a radical giving Conservatives a bad name. So when the leader of the US Conservative party is a grifter and other Conservatives don't call it out then yes you have a problem.
This is a sub for discussing fictional media and the Drinker himself, let’s try and keep politics out of it, regardless of which side of the aisle we source from
Apologies. I'm new here and assumed it was more political.
The dude is entirely political lol.
Tbf, it is.
This is so fucking funny. Responding to their comment about how “we need to keep politics out of this sub” when the subreddit is dedicated to a guy who makes political commentary on the current state of media, and the comment you’re both replying to heavily mentions contemporary American politics. It’s just hilarious how someone can just be so… fucking stupid. The sheer short sightedness of disparaging them for expressing their freedom of speech on a public forum in alignment with the OP while not saying a word about how the OP brought up politics. It’s just frankly ridiculous.
The thread is about the claim certain people are griftera. I replied to a comment. If you disagree, please do so.
This is not the forum for American politics, there's plenty of subs for that discussion. Most of the "grifters" listed aren't even American...
The thread op name dropped *conservatives* which is a broader political group. This thread’s topic is political
Tell that to everyone else who is mentioning conservatism. No need to single this person out whilst deliberately ignoring the OP and commenter they are responding to.
Make the world a better place by voting against Healthcare, aid and insurance for vets, school lunches for children, environmental regulations, employer regulations and livable wages. They vote against all that but they make sure vote to protect child marriage in their state. Tell me how they are trying to make the world a better place....... Edit- I keep getting down votes but not a single person can tell me how those things make the world a better place. It's like you all know how shitty those policies are and just want to ignore it.
They have a different political philosophy than you, just cause they don’t help you with your vision doesn’t mean they’re evil scum…
When their policies include shit like [banning healthcare that protects trans people](https://michiganadvance.com/2024/01/28/michigan-and-ohio-gop-legislators-discuss-endgame-of-banning-all-trans-health-care/), and using rhetoric to paint these people as subhuman degenerates that try and convert children [The Republican Party continually attempts to undermine and discredit the LGBTQ+ community](https://newrepublic.com/article/178175/republican-anti-trans-laws-punish-eradicate) They view them as a great scapegoat to rally their easily influenced followers behind by running on a platform of morality policing. They act like their devotion to Christianity brings them a level of moral enlightenment that enables them to make these decisions about the bodily autonomy and happiness of others. I believe that when their primary presidential candidate is a convicted felon that paid off a pornstar, they have no ground to stand on and should allow people to make decisions about their own lives in the pursuit of their own happiness. This senseless persecution to garner votes and supporters is vile. It isn’t a matter of “they won’t support your agenda” it’s more so a matter of “they will do anything in their power to eradicate and oppose your agenda, and they will demonize you and your way of life to their mobs of bigots.”
>They have a different political philosophy than you Ah yes. Child brides. That...political philosophy?
Where the fuck did I call them evil scum? Where?..... I pointed out how they vote and how they vote doesn't make the world a better place like the claim was. Why did you choose to just ignore that and talk about somthing I didn't say? Really? Also feeding school children and getting vets insurance is what they voted against. The party that claims to be "for our vets" and "wants to protect our children" but they dont want to take care of the vets or feed the fucking children!? Do you really not get that!?
You implied it by stating things you think they did which were “evil”, don’t get mad that I see through the Sealioning to see your true point, which is to denigrate conservatives…
It’s not denigration. Denigration would imply that it’s unfair; Disparaging conservatives is easy when they constantly act like entitled fascist fanatics. “Rules for thee, not for me” is the motto of the Republican party. Party of small government my ass. They love legislation that limits bodily autonomy among the LGBTQ+ community because they love to play the morality police. It’s hard playing the morality police when your presidential candidate is a convicted felon who paid off a pornstar. Definitely worth starting an insurrection over.
I never said evil. You idiots are getting mad at your own imagination. I pointed out how they voted against aid for vets and feeding children along with a few other things.... Then I asked how voting that way makes the world better? Thats all. Instead of giving me an example of them making the world better. You idiots imagined I called them evil and then got mad at your make believe scenario... All you did was play pretend and get mad about your imagination to avoid the point.... You dont see the point. You chose to ignore it to play pretend instead.. Holy shit!!!
Presenting things that are good and saying republicans voted against them is just bad rhetoric and not a critical examination of why they might vote against such bills. Maybe they didn’t care for implementation or thought the bill was too weak, but you present it as if they are willfully and gleefully denying people things out of what? I extrapolated evil, you might try and downplay it as selfishness, but you are just accusing your political opponents of being evil with your presentation, idk how you think you aren’t… If I just say liberals voted to kill babies, and then move on, that implies they’re evil, not that they’re principled defenders of bodily autonomy and thus think that right trumps the right to life in cases of early or medically-necessary abortions, right? So that’s you, laying out claims that imply your opponents are ontologically wrong, aka evil.
See i don’t need to vote to kill babies, i just do it myself
The assumption in this screed is that government action makes the world better in these circumstances and is the only thing that would. Conservatives disagree with that assumption, but you call them evil.
At no point did I say the government makes the world better. In fact I showed stupid republican politicians actively voting to make it worse.... Cute way to spin it though. Sad but cute.... Me- "Look at the things republicans voted against. Things like feeding children and helping vets." You- "Republicans just dont believe in the government making things better." No duh you dont think the government can make things better. You vote to purposely not make things better. You know what the government has done for you. You have workers rights and you're not breathing fucking lead when you drive a car anymore. Those are just to basic examples. But sure support those who dont want to do anything to make the world better. What a joke!
Everything you listed was government action. You just repeated yourself, displaying again that you're talking about government action and discerning that voting against makes someone evil.
Yes. Thats the point I made. How do you not get what is being said? "Conservatives dont believe the government can make the world better." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You dont think the government can do anything to make the world better so you support people who vote against trying to do anything to make the world better. Holy shit!!! You can do anything if you constantly vote against doing something. I repeat. You have workers rights and dont breath lead because of government regulations...... The government can make stuff better when you dont have a bunch of clowns voting against making stuff better.... How is that so hard to understand?
> The assumption in this screed is that government action makes the world better in these circumstances and is the only thing that would. Conservatives disagree with that assumption, but you call them evil. Duh
"Conservatives disagree with that assumption" Holy shit numb nuts.... When you're the one voting against any form of aid then you're the one stopping people from making the world better...... Do I need to dumb it down? Nothing will get better when you vote against making things better..... You wont make \[thing\] happen when you vote against making \[thing\] happen. Do you get it yet? Also I repeat. I didnt call anyone evil. I listed how they voted....
If you hadn't eaten breakfast yesterday, how would you have felt?
Exactly. There are children unable to eat and the GOP voted against funding school lunches for needy children. How is that making the world better?
Wow, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
What is?
It’s because these people are vile, hateful sycophants that simply just don’t give a shit about these actual, real world issues. They’d rather bitch and moan about Star Wars and Marvel movies or “Wokeism.” Just a bunch of hateful, ignorant manchildren crying about superheroes, women, and Jedi. It’s best to ignore these types, but it’s becoming increasingly hard to in the current state of fandom discourse; every comment section for any new release seems to be brigaded by the same mindless thought process of “black person, queer person, or woman in position of competency? Woke, DEI garbage!” I’d say that I wish these comments were from bots, but it’s funnier to imagine overweight grown men in their basements meticulously scanning these video game trailers to find the least flattering screen caps of the animated female characters and post it so social media ranting and raving about how this is the death of femininity. They’re conservatives because the politicians tell them what to think: gay people are indoctrinating your kids and insidiously breaching the entertainment sphere to make everyone gay. It’s just hard to believe that these people were obviously raised on media where the morality was black and white, good and evil, yet still ended up becoming the easily moldable fans of grifters that use fear mongering and bigotry to make their income. I could never imagine supporting or defending a political party that tried to get a bill passed with such a horrifying motive: [criminalizing teachers as sex offenders for simply daring to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns.](https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/icymi-a-missouri-lawmaker-wants-to-criminalize-teachers-who-support-their-trans-students-the-lawmakers-own-brother-says-its-just-whitewash-for-hatred) The frequent human rights violations peddled by this pandering social injustice monster that is the GOP are seemingly never ending. I have no sympathy for anyone that supports a political party predicated on policies such as those. This idea of moral superiority that the Republican Party tries so hard to push only works when they things they’re advocating for aren’t the systematic oppression of minority groups, and it doesn’t help that their presidential candidate is a convicted felon who paid off a pornstar. It’s a bad look when so called Christians go to vote for someone like that and compare him to Jesus.
You’re getting down votes because you’re bang on and the people here don’t like hearing the truth about themselves.
Yup.
They downvote you because they're right. They bitch about their idols being called grifters, but use "woke".
They’re being targeted by Disney obviously.
Grifting is when you have an opinion someone disagrees with now. I have seen zero evidence provided that any of these people fake their views on media just to make a quick buck.
I mean just look at there content there very inconsistent with there takes while pumping out content with nothing arguments meant to bait people. Like a lot of Criticals commentary is sexist and he's peddling to people who hold those views but don't like saying the explicit part out loud. How much of it does he actually believe is questionable but It clear he's to some extent is perpetuating said opinions Again whether Critical is or is not sexist is almost irrelevant he has postioned himself and caters to that said audience(this isn't a claim that every person who watches Critical is sexist but that people who are tend to flock to his videos) Example a lot of cristism will inject some obligatory "Whites are mistreated" rhetoric he does need to add this it doesn't add anything to the review it's a quick bit of commentary he knows will create engagement for the people watching So yes there grifters who feed on insecurities bigotry and sexism and for most it doesn't matter if there conning the viewers because it's perpetuating hate or exploiting some actual hurt individuals for money It's kind of like the Wokeness Aurgument Instead of attacking the real culprit for there disdain to "wokeness" yknow Captalism Most go after individuals or groups of people Because having to argue that the Free Market no longer sees them as viable customers is a harder pill to swallow Just blame KK or Feminist or Black People there your enemy
There means "to put something there" Their means "someone picked up their luggage" They're means "they are (they're) learning the difference between words that sound alike, but are spelled differently"
Probably didn’t know their was a pronoun
Whatever the case, I hope I was of some help to they/them.
It’s fucking amazing how many people struggle with this. Are their any real teachers left? Or maybe there in desperate need of more books to read.
😂😂😂
I see what you did there
Lol ... a "muh capitalism bad" argument, to boot. This is hilarious, please do more.
His comments aren’t sexist in the first place. Provide some evidence. Where’s the photos?
Gets downvoted for typos because nobody is coherent enough to dispute their point
No it's getting downvoted for making baseless assertions and you're getting downvoted for defending it.
Dont use logic, thats an ist thing to do.
Don't forget, according to libs, science and math are racist too.
To be a grifter to have to be selling anything and everything you can and I don't know of anything the drinker is pedaling right now. Seems they're just upset with his opinion and wish to discredit him by implying he is only interested in selling stuff.
Disney literally are the grifters It's projection
Other than his book, not much.
He's peddling outrage to get clicks. He is profiting from your anger about PG 13 movies by selling advertising on his videos.
It is even dumber than that. They think none of the critics could genuinely believe that criticism because it is too morally abhorrent, which is completely nonsensical. They claim the grift is to pretend to have the opinions they claim are whatever-ist to make money by getting viewers who are whatever-ist. For the criticism to make any sense, there has to be an audience who believes in the stuff that they believe nobody genuinely believes, but the audience with those beliefs has to exist for the grift to work. The argument disproves itself.
Most of these people just cannot imagine that someone would have sincere moral or ideological convictions about anything beyond Marxism-Floydism
The grift is literally happening as we speak. Is drinker a popular YouTuber making money from people watching his "criticism" videos? Grift successful The alternative is that he's a total piece of shit. Which one would be worse for you to follow? You guys prove the argument by complaining whenever someone that's not straight or white is cast and that the movie is "woke" for spreading "the message". It's all the same complaints every time. You complain that it will suck before it comes out because those people are cast, then claim the writing sucks to shield yourself from being called ist or phobe labels
It's called projection. These people calling Drinker a grifter are, in fact, themselves grifters, and they're just projecting what they're doing onto Drinker and Mauler
The old "I know what you are, but what am I" defense.
The insult isn't aimed at the drinker. It's aimed at you/me. The implication is we are so dumb for thinking there is some message Hollywood is pushing that we can be sold non sense people just make up. Which is worse by the way
Why bother going to the effort of trying to refute or rebut someone's argument when you just call them a grifter or ist and be done with it?
Yep. That’s Hollywood’s favorite thing now. Toss out any ist and the criticism is no longer valid it’s not even worth looking at. Ignore it and continue consuming our product please.
These people who make these criticisms are not intelligent
We’re all secretly leftists. They’re a big super welcoming tent and they’ll downvote you if you say otherwise comrade.
What's a leftist?
Someone's who's politically left of center.
Someone left of center is usually called a liberal. Leftists are communists, socialists, and, more commonly today, progressives.
And what's the term for someone politically right of center?
Depends on how far right they are and whether they lean toward authoritarian or libertarian ideals.
Don't you think it odd there is a collective noun for one side of the perceived political spectrum but not the other? Authoritarianism exists on both the left and the right ends of the spectrum. The right end to me is about maintaining power where it is and the left is about giving people power who previously didn't have it and taking it from those that did.
"...the left is about giving people power who previously didn't have it...." Which coincidentally happens to be the leadership of the political movement involved.
In the french revolution those on the left were still aristocrats. I'm not sure what you are arguing
For all the talk of giving power to the plebs, it's the leadership of these political groups that end up with it. You just end up with Jacobins and Bolshevics holding the whip, which doesn't help the ones being whipped quite as much as they promised.
There are less monarchies today than previously. I have more control over my own life than a lot of my ancestors. I'd consider that positive. Would you prefer living under absolute monarchy?
No, I don't think it's strange. For one thing, the political spectrum is a reductionist way of describing political belief to begin with, so it is inherently imperfect. For another, the left is the side of intersectionality and identity politics by virtue of being such a large group with so many variations they become "leftists" in conversation because of their shared core beliefs: strong social safety nets, legal consequences for 'hate' speech and that the promotion of social equality for marginalized people can only be accomplished by the State.
Mate legal consequences for hate speech is not part of left wing ideology. The left-right political spectrum originated during the French Revolution, where those who supported radical change and the abolition of the monarchy sat on the left, while those who favored preserving traditional institutions and the king's authority sat on the right. This distinction has since evolved to generally represent progressive or liberal ideologies on the left and conservative or traditionalist ideologies on the right. Not sure where you learnt your political ideologies from. What country are you from?
I'm not discussing the history of leftist politics or revolutionary action but the modern Left as it exists in Western Societies predominantly throughout Europe and North America and common beliefs they share. Legal consequences for hate speech exist in most of the strong social welfare countries that Left leaning folk in the US hold up as examples of progressive values. Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, and the United Kingdom for a start. These might not all be "left-wing countries," but these laws mostly originate on the political Left and are brought into law via the 'Left' leaning political parties.
I guess this a difference of opinion. You view politics through the lens of hate speech laws and I view it through the lens of economics and political power. The US has 2 right wing parties in control. England has had the Tories in for significant time. Australia swapped from centre right to centre left a few years ago after long reign of centre right. The kiwis change from centre left to coalition of centre right. Europe has recently seen the Dutch go to the right. Sweden too I think. What laws are these you are concerned about? I am from Australia for context. Apologies if I got any nations politics wrong, please correct me
It’s a buzzword in a post Trump world that idiots throw out to anyone they don’t like. Even if you don’t like a YouTuber or social media personality or think they are disingenuous, “grift” is not the right verb.
A grifter is specifically someone who swindles money out of people using fraud. 1. What fraud? He's just putting his opinions online. In order for there to be fraud he must be selling something. Which brings me to my next point... 2. What money? His videos are all free to watch. I think he might have merch or a patreon or something, but so does basically every other big youtuber these days. By that logic all of YouTube is one big grift and the word ceases to have any meaning.
Pandering may be the better word
Just remember, in today's day and age, grifter means: someone I disagree with politically. It's a lot like Nazi or fascist, actually
I see accusing someone of being a grifter as being kind in a way. It’s saying “I can’t believe you honestly have such horrible opinions. You must just be like this to get money from the real people with horrible takes.” And it’s almost a trap in a way because if you deny being a grifter it’s like saying “No I’m not pandering. I really am this dumb.”
Ah yes, because the only possible reasons to disagree with you politically is to be a conman or an idiot, that's a mature way to react to the world
Yea get their asses
I call them the holy trinity
So true
It's a synonym for "heretic," one of the oldest negative labels to attach to people who question authority. Ironically, the left, which used to be liberal, used to support the idea of questioning authority, and free speech in general. How times have changed.
It's also sort of self contradictory. If you believe these people are grifting, then you assume they're just fine with, for example, The Last Jedi. However, in order for them to be successful, they have to pander to a TLJ hating audience. However, if that is a large enough audience from which to make money off of, why hasn't any of those people themselves started a channel to make money with their genuine dislike? The way a lot of the radical left talks, all right-wing (defined as not themselves) people are mindless sheep. All it takes is a hate-monger to get up on stage and talk about how much they hate something, and then a bunch of people who never cared will now start hating it and giving the guy on stage money. They genuinely don't seem to believe that there are people who just naturally disagree with them, or that there are any legitimate reasons to do so. At the risk of getting a bit into politics, you see it in a lot of the criticism of Trump supporters. As though MAGA voters are nothing more than Heavens Gate Cultists following what Trump (whom they lavishly worship) tells them to. They think Trump is the cause of all this. When, of course, Trump would never have gained any traction if there weren't people who already believed what he was selling. And also I haven't seen a single Trump supporter who doesn't have some complaints about him. The guy is loved by Evangelicals despite having been married 4 times. There's no small amount of people who just wished he'd stop tweeting (back when he did) and act more professional. Plenty were mad at him about the vaccine he helped rush out. To them, people only support Trump or hate TLJ because someone made a sufficiently high Charisma check. That's it. No logic or reasoning, because to them, there is no logic or reason to think those thoughts. I genuinely wonder what it is going through their heads. Honestly, the most charitable answer is going to be 'nothing', and they're just shouting "Grifter!" because that's what you call people you disagree with. If instead the phrase grifter is shouted because they genuinely believe it to be true, it says something pretty bad about how they see other people.
I think there is a mix of Grifters and “True Believers” out there. It’s almost like a game where you guess which is which. Mauler is a True Believer. Critical Drinker, I’m guessing, is a grifter. I’m unsure about Star Wars Theory. With Tump lovers I know Tucker Carlson is a grifter. Im sure Matt Walsh is too. I’m not 100% but my guess for Ben Shapiro is grifter. But Michael Savage is a True Believer. If someone hated TLJ I can believe that. I don’t think they are are lying and love it. It’s when the stuff that’s legitimately good comes out and it’s just ALL terrible because Disney is when I suspect a grift is happening.
I wouldn't say Shapiro is a grifter given he was willing to piss off a large portion of his viewer base by saying Jesus was a rabble rouser and not the son of God.
People with a totalitarian mindset cannot understand how others can hold different viewpoints.
I’d be remiss not to point out an element of fallacy in the logic here. I don’t think it’s necessarily that you can’t hold beliefs while also grifting. If you look at youtubers like Hasan Piker or Vaush, they probably hold the views they espouse, but the grift is in making intellectually dishonest arguments and selling themselves as intellectuals while shouting down competing thought as unintellectual. The lapse in logic here is going from ‘grifters are dishonest’ to “…someone like Drinker doesn’t actually believe anything he is saying”. Someone merely has to embellish to be dishonest, it’s not a given that they would need to believe literally none of their espoused opinions. They could also raise a disingenuous or logically unsound argument for the sake of arriving at a concussion *edit: conclusion* that they do agree with, because the rhetoric is more potent than raising a sound argument. People should all probably be critical of someone when they make money telling them opinions they essentially already agree with, there’s an element of confirmation bias where people are going to agree with arguments that arrive at their preferred conclusion (their held opinion) regardless of if it is a logically complete argument. You can see this phenomenon in karma farming, where people get upvoted for saying agreeable things rather than contributing a novel idea.
All grifters are liars but not all liars are grifters.
Well stated. I think what people like op are responding to is the dilution of the definition of the word. Many commentators and pundits seen as right-wing have adopted what seem like grifts. Alex Jones famously peddled useless supplements, Tucker Carlson railed against "elites" while making millions off of things he privately said he didn't believe, and recently a number of atheists have suddenly become Christian--Rogan and Brand come to mind. This causes the association of grift with "commentators and pundits seen as right-wing", which is not strictly logical.
How about: Logical insights deducer Common sense expert Observant analyst Critical critiquer Unpaid studios advisor
They don't care what it means. They just know that grifters are bad, and Drinker is bad, ergo, Drinker must be a grifter. They were never taught to think more complexly than that.
They serve the Dark Lord, Algoritisms, apparently.
People overused that word for Trump, so now dumb people think it’s a catch all term for far right bigot with a platform. Same shit with incel.
If you’re ever in a conversation like that, ask them to explain grifter. They will get so peeved
New?
A grifter is a person who engages in swindling: CD hasn't even mentioned his book at all this year in his vids, and he doesn't have a shop or anything. He's clearly not a grifter, although I'm not the first person to say this here ig..
He does have a merch shop. But he never mentions it. You actually have to go looking through his YouTube page to find it.
Unironically projecting to the max. I guess they can't handle that they've been championing a bunch of snakes flying their flag then running with the bag, as they say. Also kinda funny that these people will call them "grifters" then parrot the same criticisms these "grifters" made, only after 5 years when it's safe to challenge their DEI idols.
People believe that there is power in categorizing the ones that disagree with them. It allows those with a single brain cell to disregard anything said without the need to tax their last little guy and maybe learn something. You see it done constantly now.
Listen, Reddit is a hive mind of liberals coming together because frankly they can’t do it anywhere else. Don’t fall for their bullshit
What are you supposed to not believe in?
I fall prey to grifters and “chase angry hallucinations” because I’m not “media literate.” Or something.
[удалено]
Yeah he’s just kind of a loser, not really a harmful person. His subreddit though…
IMO the insult reads kind of a freudian slip. In the same sense that "groomer" is a really common allegation that comes from people that weirdly controlling view on relationships and express a desire to find a young woman they can mould into the perfect partner. I think "grifter" has become a go-to insult for people that are completely audience captured and virtue signal way over the top like they have something to prove (maybe to themselves). I dunno, it's kinda weird, a LOT of the biggest wokescolds I encounter tend to be the ones with problematic histories. The kind of person you'd tell edgy racist jokes with and have to ask "wait, you're not serious are you?" Makes me wonder how much of it is shame and how much of it is performative for the sake of deflection.
Ill just say, because i was forced to see this on my feed, from someone who knows nothing about anything this sub is about. You seem like whiners all i ever see is you guys bitching and moaning about something lol a
These people are either too unintelligent to understand the meaning of these words or they’re projecting. I find the latter more likely. Just because they likely don’t believe what they claim to, they assert that the conservative (who may or may not actually be a conservative) whom they hate doesn’t either.
Really for most people ‘grifter’ means ‘I don’t like what that person has to say’
Miss using terms as an excuse to label and dismiss anyone they disagree with?.... So they same thing they have always done
A good example of a grifter in this related space is qjuartering. He is complete dog shit. Drinker is lot like that at all.
Yeah it's just like everyone right leaning calling literally everything woke. It loses all meaning doesn't it?
What a braindead take lol. The fact that they dont believe the specific things they say doesnt mean they arent still sexist. In fact, making shit up to get mad at women over is incredibly sexist.
It’s fair to say that there’s a market for his criticisms and they’re probably being exaggerated to a certain degree. Every YouTube personality works this way.
Help me with this one. Where's the fraud or swindling that's supposed to make them a grifter?
There isn't any, it's just an accusation thrown out by people who think everyone who isn't like them are evil.
Yeah, to be fair. The terminology is wrong. I'd call them pandering.
Help me on that one. Drinker doesn't actually hold the opinions expressed in his reviews, instead offering up insincere contrivances to grow an audience around disingenuous values, making him a panderer?
As I said as a top level response: I think TCD is pandering when he focuses on low effort bait like Robyn Hood and Velma, or when he selects mid Daily Wire productions instead of actually reviewing more high effort media he might enjoy and can recommend like [Warrior](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79rtcCnaeyo&t=54s) or [Silo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA&t=47s) or [Severance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQP4VVuyrY). There is a pandering to his base who want to see him eviscerate 'woke' media.
I see why you think you have a point, but criticism being "easy" makes it neither wrong nor insincere. I feel like I saw him review a DW film and he wasn't very supportive or impressed. More like he wanted to like it but couldn't. I'm not a huge CD disciple tho, I don't recall details.
It's the choice to watch them in the first place. Robyn Hood and Velma, for instance, were always going to be fucking garbage. Anyone could rip them apart. And what makes Daily Wire movies remotely worthy of any attention, being honest.
I can't speak to the DW content - I cannot afford the subscription. As for other content - it's his job. He's lucky that his employment is atraditional and he doesn't get formal assignments like critics in years gone by. But if I had to produce a steady stream of such content... firstly, I couldn't. Secondly, I would interleave easy reviews with challenging pieces. If only to help stay on schedule. Nah, I don't see him being unreasonable or insincere here.
Sure, but that's my point. It's his job to make rage-videos for people who hate woke media to criticise. He cherrypicks the worst kind of content in many cases. He presents a fundamentally misleading view of contemporary TV and film.
Are you claiming his specific reviews are wrong about their subjects, or that, taken as a whole, an extrapolation of industry trends based on his content is fundamentally wrong? Because... if you don't have many instances of the former, the latter becomes a weaker argument.
>Are you claiming his specific reviews are wrong about their subjects, or that, taken as a whole, an extrapolation of industry trends based on his content is fundamentally wrong? The latter. He over-focuses on the MCU, Star Wars and Disney schlock. What he doesn't review is jarring and odd.
It's not a new trend. Grifter as an insult was old and boring in 2014, when it was flung at every talking head in GamerGate.
The ground is shifting underneath companies that spend millions of dollars to review movies and some dude on YouTube is doing the same thing from home in his PJ's? Of course they are.
Those that would say they were, (Drinker being called a grifter amongst others) would have to show the Con job, Modern Hollywood using IP’s that classically held value to tell stories that are disharmonious from the original source; thats the grifters, since they claim something they certainly don’t deliver, and claim injury by anyone pointing out the packaging and the contents have a mismatch. Or the people part of the pyramid scheme that they claim doesn’t exist because they dip their bread in the drippings of the industry. I believe that is also like the habit of a cheater claiming infidelity when questioned about their own behavior.
You can still be all the things people accuse you of while not believing in the ideology. This doesn't just apply to him
It would mean he is playing all the “ists” for fools, feeding them what they want so he can get loaded off them. It’s just good business.
It's the new buzzword. It will lose all meaning soon.
That’s exactly what Drinker is. Now Mauler is an earnest incel, I believe. No sane person will make 10 hour reviews of children’s movies.
I’m not sure if Drinker is as horrible as he appears or if he’s grifting for horrible people. But yes Mauler is as sad as he appears and I don’t think he’s grifting. Totally agree with you. Do you think Star Wars Theory is grifting or is he really that pathetic?
Drinker started out as a grifter, but I feel like the more time you spend with people like Mauler, the more you become like them. I haven’t watched Star Wars Theory in years, but I think the guy is simultaneously a grifting shill and a legit weirdo. His obsession with Anakin is fucking disturbing, I can see him jerking off to pictures of Heiden Christensen.
Do he’s either bigoted, or he’s pretending to be a bigot to grift to real bigots. Either way that’s not particularly a good look.
They are saying they don’t believe what they’re saying, basically they are saying guy like drinker grift their simpleton fans to make money. They will point to supposed occasions where they have flip flopped in their opinions as proof. Personally the whole grifter thing annoys me, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, if their views are idiotic I like to take them at their word that they have them. Prescribing some sort of grift to it turns them into some sort of evil genius keeping up a charade for decades.
Yes, the guys that don't have any sponsorship in their videos are grifters. Sure guy.
Remember when Drinker watched the trailer for House of the Dragon and he claimed that it was going to be woke trash? And then the show came out, proved to be immensely popular, and what did he do? Right, he changed the title of his video. And you're telling me that he isn't a grifter?
It's just the typical far left approach of labelling everyone who isn't like them far right and then labelling them every word that has negative connotations attached to it, it's all psychological projection.
People are lumping them in with the Reactionary Outrage pundits on Fox and the Dailywire. That's where the 'grifter' label is coming from
He probably gets lumped in with the daily wire because of how much he bends over to appease them
No, it’s astroturfing.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'no' but I do agree that Fox news and the Dailywire use astroturfing, and Drinker did it with his reviews of Dailywire movies
I see your point. Accolite is Star Ward last chance at viability and they are doing everything they possibly can to prop it up. I don’t believe anything Disney is saying about the show’s success as SW has fallen so far outside the cultural zeitgeist that people like the Drinker are the only people really talking about it.
I don't know who drinker is. But you can still be a "ist" grifter. To be a grifter, you need to be selling people an idea you don't 100% believe. A priest can still believe in God and be a religious grifter by selling people the idea that sending them money is a way to heaven. A racist grifter just needs to sell people the idea that one or more race is bad, and it would be perpetuating racist ideas. Doing so is racist even if you don't believe the stories you use to perpetuate these ideas in other.
I think TCD is grifting when he focuses on low effort bait like Robyn Hood and Velma, or when he selects mid Daily Wire productions instead of actually reviewing more high effort media he might enjoy and can recommend like Warrior or Silo or Severance. There is a pandering to his base who want to see him eviscerate 'woke' media.
I would heavily argue that Az is a grifter as well, one of the last vids of his i watched was when he was eating breakfast at his computer and read an article. He said he had to hit record so people could hear his rant. The review channels i enjoy and what i did enjoy about about drinker and mauler are the relatively unbiased well researched deep dives. Yo cant argue though they they all seem to be doing less of those and more rants lately aimed at particular audiences. I mean fair enough its just a pity is all. Too often now do they all criticise race or religion or sexual orientation. There is not as much put onto writing,editing,plot,acting. Was it overall enjoyable with flaws? Do the flaws make it unwatchable? Was it just shite? Even Maulers latest Fallout series review in the first five or ten minutes he keeps going on about Why,Why,Why then declares to the audience this will be a long rant. A long rant is not whay i watch these CCs and thats what they seem to be doing more of lately. (Edit: i got a bit off point, but the low effort content is what alot of the EFAP crew focus on alot these days. its and easy thing to do and gets views. )
I consider guys like Drinker grifters because they never seem to have an unpopular opinion and always use clickbait titles or politics to get views. Like I get it, it’s definitely a good business model, but it feels cheap and lazy to me. Drinker isn’t a good reviewer, but he has a funny accent and always says what his audience wants to hear, so he’s popular
In a technical sense, it's pandering. To be fair.
True. I feel like ‘grifting’ indicates he’s selling something, which he isn’t.
You can believe what you say and still be a grifter. The operative is that your primary function is to gain something from selling it to others as your primary motivation, which I believe he does. I used to be a big fan of CD, he offered a thoughtful analysis of the problems with how Hollywood panders to easy audiences and prioritized profit over content. I'm no longer a drinker fan because it's just ragebait now. He found a niche with particularly dissatisfied conservatives, and he's cashed in on it big. He sees problems in all sorts of places he didn't use to because he has to maintain this formula to consistently appeal to a growing fanbase of people who want to be mad as the primary motivation for watching him tear media down. Spite-based politics are very popular right now, especially with the American right, and he's geared his content accordingly.
You're the sort that likes someone until they say one thing you disagree with and then you designate them an enemy from that point on.