>>150214692
>We would call this a grift.
No that's fraud. Grifting is always Fraud but not all fraud is grifts. Saying "I'm sending the money this way" and then taking it is regular old embezzlement. Not a grift because they got the thing they wanted, you defrauded them because that money isn't being sent where its advertised and embezzled.
See how many wondrous words there are to describe what you actually mean? Use them!
>I tell you that buying the book will show support for anti-woke products and traditional values.
Following so far.
>I do this knowing there is no such impact,
...how.
Lets flip back to the example you just gave, the first one say "If you give me this 100 dollars, the money is going to X!" That's a physical location it could have gone, but didn't, you kept it. In example B, you said "If we sell a bunch of these, it'll show people there's a market for it!" That's a belief as to what may happen. And a factual one, at that! If you sell enough of them, yeah, you'll change the market. Will you? Probably not, but how the fuck will you know that at the start? You're describing selling an idea, at best, which would be essentially gambling with your ideals. If I buy enough, I win big and get my thing! That's not a fucking grift, you, idiot, that's advertising!
>YOU argue this is not a grift.
First thing you finally said that makes sense!
>With the intent and steps these are both grifting.
Neither are grifting. Ones Embezzlement and one's, at the absolute worst, False Advertising.
Use the right goddamn words.
>The fact that the claims of option 2 aren't legally definable doesn't matter when applying the label of grift.
It absolutely does and you're wrong about literally everything, its impressive.
>It's about saying they're both dogshit.
If I wanted to hear an opinion wrapped around words the users don't understand I'd watch a brownnosing wannabe celebrity flip flopping opinion huckster.
