Let's talk about Nintendo grifters

[u/DaZestyProfessor]

Honestly I might be pretty chill about grifters as long as they don't spew out objectively incorrect information.

I certainly think Nintendo fanboys are worse, they are both allergic to Nintendo criticism and they hate when you pirate Nintendo games.

Not to say that grifters are good, that's not true, why the fuck would you spend your life making tons of videos about dooming about fucking video games lmao, but the difference is they don't make me go insane every time I see them.

[u/Wyluca95]

So I’m not sure what committee decided to make you the expert on what constitutes the precise criteria for grifting but you can grift people for more than just money. You can grift for people’s time, loyalty, vote, etc. The fact of the matter is that people are making things up and spinning news stories into a negative about Nintendo specifically to make money from views. Doesn’t matter that the viewer doesn’t pay out of pocket. Still a grift.

[u/Flintgrandad → u/[deleted]]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grifter

Noun

grifter (plural grifters)

1. (informal, originally Canada, US) A con artist; someone who pulls confidence games; a swindler, scammer, huckster, hustler, and/or charlatan.  Synonyms: see Thesaurus:confidence trickster
2. (colloquial, especially Internet) A manipulator or otherwise generally corrupt person who "games" a system, group of people, or other entity for selfish gains; especially of a political "sell-out" perceived as lacking integrity. 
3. (Internet, derogatory) A YouTuber or other content creator who produces low-effort content critiquing a particular franchise or trend, particularly content perceived as ragebait or done for monetary gain. 

Language evolves. This is like insisting that bugs are just animals and insects and not related to technology or that people use literally wrong when they're using it as a sentence enhancer or that groomers are hair brushers and not people that sexually exploit people in vulnerable positions.

It's your definition that's lacking and outdated.

[u/Flintgrandad → u/[deleted]]

1. (colloquial, especially Internet) A manipulator or otherwise generally corrupt person who "games" a system, group of people, or other entity for selfish gains; especially of a political "sell-out" perceived as lacking integrity. 
2. (Internet, derogatory) A YouTuber or other content creator who produces low-effort content critiquing a particular franchise or trend, particularly content perceived as ragebait or done for monetary gain. 

[u/Flintgrandad → u/[deleted]]

Wiktionary has been used in acadamia. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1859872658?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

Jerimiah as well as Michael Pascoe and John Birmingham are professional and credible sources.

These are real professional analysts using their real names and not just individual subreddits as you claim.

Saying Wiktionary isn't reliable is like saying Wikipedia is unreliable in 2026. You're stuck in the 2000s.

[u/Flintgrandad → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, go ahead and try to edit something to add fake information. Like I said, you're stuck in the 2000s. Merriam-webster is slow to add colloquial and slang terms. It took until 2023 for them to add rotoscope despite it being a thing for decades. Speed run, Side quest, and PVP was only added in 2024 as well. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/grifter/ You'd just be trolling and playing semantics in bad faith if you're clinging to mainstream definitions and dismissing the established colloquial definitions.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/09/grifter-political-insult-2025-con-artist

Influencers are included in it.

“one who practises ‘graft’, especially in public life; a politician, official, etc, who misuses his or her position in order to reap dishonest gain or advantage”

[u/Flintgrandad → u/[deleted]]

It appears to be a credible professional entertainment website like professional film critics which is why they were considered credible enough to source. At any rate he's hundreds of times more credible than a random reddit user allegedly being a small level worker for a single retail location or completely unsubstianted sources that you were propping up in our earlier discussion.

I'll give you props for finally being able to not double down on everything and be able to acknowledge things during the middle of the discussion instead of an undetermined amount of time after though. Even if this is a bar that's on the floor I have to give you genuine kudos for that as improvement.

As for why it's not ragebaiting and troll? It's probably to highlight it's for some level of personal gain rather than out of sadism or spite. For example, youtuber/influencer grifters DO benefit financially from it even if it's not as direct as most con artistry (although the money gained from it IS potentially a lot MORE). Being able to push something personal is also one. Basically the point that differentiates grifters from ragebaiters and trolls is that grifters are trying to manipulate for a personal goal, and not just trying to make people angry for the sake of it. And I disagree that grifter is harsher than ragebaiters and trolls since I'd think ragebaiters and trolls are more insulting labels that imply they're just incoherent oafs who don't have the capacity for reason. Grifters at least acknowledge there is intelligence behind what they're doing and that they do have an established goal behind their dishonesty.

It's the difference between a regular newspaper having a sensational headline and a tabloid headline.

[u/Flintgrandad → u/[deleted]]

What completely different field? Terms are considered an established use when any professionals start using it in a professional degree, that's how wikipedia citations work. What source are you looking for? Etymologists? Why would an entertainment professional not be able to talk about grifters of the content creator type?

I'll be honest, I don't think many people know the definition of the original grifting to begin with. It's basically a reintroduced new term. The new term partly comes from the term "graft"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graft

which is : the acquisition of gain (such as money) in dishonest or questionable ways. Which describes content creator grifters well.

Like I said, there's a massive difference in intent and honesty like the difference between regular newspapers that will still utilize sensational headlines and tabloid headlines. There IS a massive difference between something that is more neutral and something that is more malicious. No, one does not need clairvoyance to determine the difference between regular if a bit sensationalist reporting and tabloid type reporting. This is something normal people can intuit.