It's an interesting thing to think about. Like if he is eventually charged, because he has leaned into this far right shite, he has a good amount of money to fight it, bettering his chances of being acquitted.
There is also the possibility of being able to further milk really gullible people regardless of what the outcome is.
Either this is calculated or it isn't. I would guess the former.
Saw an interesting thing about how The Grift works a few days ago. You know how you get a scam email and the wording, spelling and punctuation is awful, it directly mentions places known for being a hub for scams and is just generally a list of different types of red flags? Sometimes you think ‘how hard would it be for them to hire someone with English as a first language to try and scam English speakers?’ or you laugh at just how obvious a scam it is. Well that’s actually by design. They’re deliberately made to be obvious scams because it immediately filters out anyone in any way skeptical, it essentially gets people who are somewhat illiterate, vulnerable to being lied to and taken advantage of to self-identify. Essentially anyone who replies to that email is an excellent target to be scammed, and you’ve filtered out anyone who might waste your time.
It’s the same thing with conspiracy chuds and far right grifters - the more fringe the content, the more absurd the claims, the more you repel anyone, well, sane. What you’re left with is a fraction of your possible audience, but you’ve filtered out anyone who’d disagree with you or question you and you’re left with just the people who’ll happily empty their pockets for you and validate others in doing the same.
Gideon wrote:Saw an interesting thing about how The Grift works a few days ago. You know how you get a scam email and the wording, spelling and punctuation is awful, it directly mentions places known for being a hub for scams and is just generally a list of different types of red flags? Sometimes you think ‘how hard would it be for them to hire someone with English as a first language to try and scam English speakers?’ or you laugh at just how obvious a scam it is. Well that’s actually by design. They’re deliberately made to be obvious scams because it immediately filters out anyone in any way skeptical, it essentially gets people who are somewhat illiterate, vulnerable to being lied to and taken advantage of to self-identify. Essentially anyone who replies to that email is an excellent target to be scammed, and you’ve filtered out anyone who might waste your time.
It’s the same thing with conspiracy chuds and far right grifters - the more fringe the content, the more absurd the claims, the more you repel anyone, well, sane. What you’re left with is a fraction of your possible audience, but you’ve filtered out anyone who’d disagree with you or question you and you’re left with just the people who’ll happily empty their pockets for you and validate others in doing the same.
Zilnad wrote:Pretty sure his True News stuff had a small following of GRcadians back when he started out. Obviously back then, it wasn't quite the completely bat gooseberry fool, conspiracy stuff that he now spouts but I can see how impressionable viewers would have been suckered in to his cult over the years. It's sickening that people like him exist to prey on the vulnerable.
I remember him arguing with Sean Hannity over Palestine and him coming across very reasonably...not that you have to do a lot to come across as the reasonable one while arguing with Sean Hannity. I think he changed direction and swung to the right and conspiracy theories during covid but maybe it happened earlier and I didn't notice?
Yeah, I was onboard with all the Trews stuff, but then he overreached his influence when he tried to dictate which way the audience voted in an election, broke his trust with the viewership and then went on an extended haitus, and unsubbed.
Until I saw the video list posted on the last page, I'd not fully grasped his swing in stance.
I saw Walliams was trending earlier but I didn’t know why. Somebody had posted a video of him in a stand-up show, playing something like a 70s DJ. He got teenage boys out of the audience and talked to them inappropriately. A bit much, but it was just a character, and nothing compared to what Brand is accused of. Then he attempted to forcibly kiss them. Yeah, that’s going too far. But then… he escalated it by attempting to rip their trousers off, on stage and against their will, with varying degrees of success. I’d have thought the video was all the evidence needed for prosecution.
That was just...gross.
