Talk:Carpetbaggers
Revival
Maybe this article concept should be revived. There should be a space for describing the monetization of Christory by people besides Chris, especially since Chris has commented or otherwise gotten involved with it.
- Should we keep the "Carpetbaggers" name, or call it something else?
- How should it be defined? The prior version of Carpetbaggers defined it as "more successful people in the Chris Chan bubble who attempt to take advantage of Chris' infamy, or the events that surround him, for their own personal gain, typically for selfish, dishonest, or immoral purposes."
- Depending on the definition, topics to cover in a revived article could include Dillin Thomas, Geno Samuel, Kiwi Farms silver coin, Praetor, and Winfield Winfield.
Any thoughts on this? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
- This sounds like a good idea, and I'm wondering if this new category should also include clout-chasers who are motivated primarily by Internet fame? This could include anyone who inserts themself into Christory, and possibly Christubers such as Gibi, CCDN News, Sonichu Psychology, etc. I think "Carpetbaggers" is a good all-encompassing term. JinkiesJanke (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2024 (EDT)
- How would clout-chasing be defined? Like, if someone makes YouTube videos about Chris does that qualify them, or is there another standard for it? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2024 (EDT)
- I've been trying to come up with a good definition for clout-chasing, but the best I've got is "I'll know it when I see it" which is obviously inadequate. Maybe someone can put it into words better if I give some examples:
- Gibi used to make other videos before he did one on Chris. It got a ton of hits, so he switched to exclusively being a Christuber. His motivation seems to be getting the views, and he's using Chris's notoriety to do it. So I would count him as a clout-chaser.
- Sonichu Psychology also seems to be doing it for attention. Despite claiming to be a certified mental health professional, he's apparently fine with diagnosing someone based on their Internet behavior and using that to build an audience. He also claims to have interviewed trolls (Bluespike, Idea Guys) but refuses to provide any proof, billing himself as a source of inside information you can't get anywhere else.
- On the other hand, Smokey McC started out as a Chris-centric channel but later expanded into other lolcows. He comes across as someone who just enjoys talking about these strange individuals. This isn't really any different than a CWCki editor or someone who posts about Chris in a forum, he's just using YouTube as his platform. So I would not count him as a clout-chaser... even though he recently landed sponsors.
- I guess the main factor to consider is how the YouTuber comes across. Are they merely interested in reporting on Chris's activities, or do they seem to want to be a part of Christory itself, to the point where they seek out attention in some way beyond the simple act of making Chris-related content?
- My thoughts, no one else has to agree. This is just a jumping off point for discussion.
- JinkiesJanke (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2024 (EDT)
Other
This should probably be included as well. Trollsta's Paradise: A True and Honest Tribute to Christian & The Hedgehog Boys Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2024 (EDT)
- Also https://x.com/BitchAssBowie/status/1799594576405282826 (archive) and Luke from Pennsylvania Trip. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (EDT)
Keffals
I don't know about you, but after reading the stuff about Keffals' whole "Christory Tax", where people have to pay over a hundred thousand dollars for an unedited interview with Chris, I can't help but think she should have some degree of mentioning on here. Psycho (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2025 (EST)
- I think Keffals was joking with that. It's an over-the-top amount that doesn't make sense ($100k per month), and it's a reference to the controversial $100k that Keffals got from an old fundraiser. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2025 (EST)
Other Carpetbaggers Page?
I think that this page should primarily cover the practice of carpetbagging itself, and give reasons against it, much like the other quintet pages. The people listed in this page can probably go in a "other carpetbaggers" page in the same vein enablers have an "Other enablers" page. Psycho (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2025 (EST)
- I'm not sure there are enough misc carpetbaggers, those without a dedicated article, for splitting this article. Maybe the reasons stuff can be added first, and we can see how much page space that takes up. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2025 (EST)
Expanding Upon the Definition of the Term
After thinking a bit about my proposal, I figured it would be a better idea to merge that idea into this, basically to expand upon the definition of the term "Carpetbagger". One way that people can profit off of Chris's infamy unscrupulously, outside of doing so monetarily, is by intentionally stirring up drama for the sake of garnering clout.
Perhaps we could do what we had done with the other Quintet entries and create subcategories of Carpetbaggers, one being those that create a business off of him, and another who purposefully spreads rumors.Psycho 🐧 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2025 (EST)
- It makes the definition of carpetbagger way too broad. Just call clout chasers Drama-Whores. BaboonRancher23 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2025 (EST)
- It doesn't make the definition too broad at all. The definition is already "people who exploit Chris's own infamy for personal gain," regardless of whether or not that's for money or attention. The article so far may have focused mainly on the former, but we can definitely add the latter, it still works fine as is. There's no need to make an entirely different category that has essentially the same definition but with different outcomes. Plus, there's definitely existing overlap between those who exploit Chris in both ways. Wouldn't it be more efficient to put people like that under the same banner rather than unnecessarily duplicate them? Anaxis (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2025 (EST)
- I think that splitting people who want to cause drama vs people who want money would be a good change. Money and fame are of a very different nature and usually people seeking just money (Praetor, Geno) have better outcomes than people who just want to cause drama (Bella, Naught, Xela). BaboonRancher23 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2025 (EST)
- The way I'd propose going about this would be to take the examples from the Drama Whores page, moving them here, and then adding a section about "Types of Carpetbaggers", which would include "Grifters" (Geno, Praetor), and the aforementioned "Drama Whores" (Bella, Naught, Xela, etc.) Psycho 🐧 (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2025 (EST)
- I think that splitting people who want to cause drama vs people who want money would be a good change. Money and fame are of a very different nature and usually people seeking just money (Praetor, Geno) have better outcomes than people who just want to cause drama (Bella, Naught, Xela). BaboonRancher23 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2025 (EST)
- It doesn't make the definition too broad at all. The definition is already "people who exploit Chris's own infamy for personal gain," regardless of whether or not that's for money or attention. The article so far may have focused mainly on the former, but we can definitely add the latter, it still works fine as is. There's no need to make an entirely different category that has essentially the same definition but with different outcomes. Plus, there's definitely existing overlap between those who exploit Chris in both ways. Wouldn't it be more efficient to put people like that under the same banner rather than unnecessarily duplicate them? Anaxis (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2025 (EST)
- I think migrating the existing content from the new page to here and combining them together under the Carpetbagger name is a good idea. Differentiating the types of carpetbaggers that exist is fine too. However, on a personal note, I don't really like the term "Drama Whores." It's unnecessarily crass and juvenile, and sounds like something Chris would say as an insult. I think it's fine to just call them Clout Chasers. Or maybe Attention-Seekers? I'm open to more suggestions. Anaxis (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2025 (EST)
- I like Clout Chasers. Also, maybe we should keep this discussion open for a few days before committing in case other editors want to comment. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2025 (EST)
- My vote is to combine them on the same page, with separate lists for each, and use "Clout Chasers" for the second group. JinkiesJanke (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2025 (EST)
Grifters
I dunno, is Grifters an accurate term? I think that usually means people who swindle others. That fits Luke well, not sure about the rest. Someone suggested Exploiters instead. Anyone have other ideas? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2025 (EST)
- Since this is about monetary exploitation, maybe "Swindler" can work better? I think "exploiters" is a bit too broad for what the term refers to, as that's basically what the term "carpetbagging" as a whole refers to. Psycho 🐧 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2025 (EST)
- I mean, a swindler is someone who deceives others and I think Luke might be the only one who crosses that line. What if we just use "For money"/"For clout" instead of "Grifters"/"Clout Chasers"? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2025 (EST)