Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Adam Conover"
channel.
-
6
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
So, what you’re telling us is that unchecked monopoly capitalism is anti-capitalist, right?
If you cannot start a small business because you’re getting squeezed by the monopoly giants, that’s the literal antithesis of a, “free market,” economy. I honestly think the argument should be framed this way. It’s the, “language,” that hits home for people.
Note: the monopoly giants hijack terms like, “capitalism,” and, “free market economy,” to describe their activities, knowing these terms have a certain traction in the American (western) imagination, while it can be shown, simply and empirically, that what they’re doing is the precise opposite of that. The most powerful argument you have is that they are shutting down capitalism, thus killing the American Dream and the American way of life.
Their methods, as you have demonstrated, are more reflective of the mafia than operators in a, “free,” space of any kind. If you put it to the people this way, that giant mergers are, “killing capitalism itself,” by killing the main resource capitalism needs to thrive, “competition,” you stand a much higher chance of not only framing the discussion in such a way that the public can take it more seriously, but also in such a manner that the courts and legislators cannot ignore.
Your opponents are GUARANTEED to attempt to paint a picture of you, and your cause, as being, “woolly liberals,” and, “anti-capitalists.” You must seize that ground from under them at the outset. Make sure everyone understands that your arguments are Pro-Capitalist, literally calling for protection of the capitalist system. What you’re calling for IS the free market economy, with the checks and balances that are meant to by guaranteed in the Constitution since the 1890’s (a piece of legislation that you need to include in your videos and legal arguments in the future, by the way) and draw as many parallels with the workings of, “government,” as you can. You must OWN that Capitalism space and make it the centre-piece of your argument.
As you have already pointed out, this much power in the hands of so few (especially in media forms) represents great power. And, “with great power comes,” Marvel comic book clichés, but that doesn’t make them any less true.
You have the arguments of Capitalism, Responsibility (as there appears to be zero accountability for the owners of these companies, except to shareholders, which do not have public interest at heart, by definition) and you have the VAST evidence of public inconvenience, Ticketmaster breaking their written word, the lowering of standards in those industries, lowering of pay and conditions for employees, all set against the background of the rapidly rising cost of living.
If you have access to good lawyers, and if you can get you connected to any senior politicians, you cannot lose. Oh, and you’ll need LOTS of money to fight these monopolists, when you’re trying to get legislation passed. But, if you make regular videos about your campaign, with progress reports, also making the granular detail available for those who want to dive deep, people will donate to the cause. It’s the only pocket that’s deeper than the head of Warner, or Mr Meat Monopolist, etc. I would contribute my cash . . .
Good luck and Godspeed, my friend. ✌️
P.S. If you read this whole thing, thank you for your patience. 👍
1
-
@gavriloprincip11 : I think it vanishingly unlikely that he would be interested in reading the comments on YouTube, even if they are directly addressing him and under his own comment. But, on the other hand, a BBC journalist responded to a comment I made about his Serbian report, yesterday, so you never know?
But, if you read my comment carefully, I have asked questions and offered some advice. I was not seeking to debate with him. Nor do I shun the possibility, but I would hope it wouldn’t be necessary. At least, on the fundamentals of the issues he raised?
I have no idea what this guy’s attitudes about, “trans issues,” are like, nor am I even curious. Don’t see how that pertains? I suppose you mean to comment on his debating style more generally? You seem to be implying that he is perhaps, “unfair,” in his technique? I wouldn’t know. First time I’ve ever commented on his channel (so far as I can remember?) but I do take people as I find them, rather than judge them on the basis of hearsay. With respect.
1
-
1