In all fairness, this sort of silly business is more representative of the "Twitter left", comprised of cogs in a perpetual rage-inducing machine, than it is of "leftists" whose main objective is to address the limitations of capitalism, at varying degrees of willingness to work within the system vs burn it down.
Of course, our media is run by billionaires so they capitalize on the identity politics to divide everyone and avoid having any real debate about economic policy, which is the only thing that really matters.
I would so much rather be debating about the best way to roll out UBI than whether to call something "main" or "master".
This is some technocrat fiction that has failed time and time again. There are towns in the US right now which actively reject help if it's not coming in the form of "more coal jobs" (which aren't coming back regardless of how much coal mining is actually on).
Economic incentives don't change people's minds, they motivate them to double-down on their biases.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that such people have been duped by channels like Fox News into doubling-down on a way of life that is simply not possible anymore.
What I'm saying is that if Fox and CNN (for instance) devoted the same air time to good-faith debate about the causes for, impact of, and solutions to wealth inequality and our changing socioeconomic landscape as they do reading Twitter comments live on air, we might be in a better position than we are today.
Billionaires capitalize on identity politics and political division because it gets them advertising dollars. That's it. While I agree that economic policy certainly merits more discussion, an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about "the elite" isn't any more productive than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about white people.
Billionaires aren't all colluding, but their incentives are aligned, and they do individually use their money to advance a political agenda that regular people who don't own TV networks are powerless to push back against.
See: Rodger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Bill and David Koch
The rich aren't a single monolithic entity and it doesn't make sense to treat them as such. George Soros is an obvious example. Unless if you have concrete evidence, a blanket anti-rich narrative only serves as a vector for another rich person to inject their ideology. Plenty of people think that Donald Trump's feud with Bezos was proof that he was on the side of the working class.
The rich aren't, but the companies they run practically are, from a political standpoint.
Basically all large, multinational corporations now make their company logo rainbow for pride month, and all release the same sounding official statements about racial inequality on a regular basis, etc. etc.
It's almost impossible to find a large corporation that doesn't do this now. And their statements are so bland and generic that they are almost all identical, and completely interchangeable.
That's the symptom and not the cause. When people treat virtue signaling the same as positive change, it's natural for corporations to exploit that. It's a cheap way of building goodwill.
Of course, our media is run by billionaires so they capitalize on the identity politics to divide everyone and avoid having any real debate about economic policy, which is the only thing that really matters.
I would so much rather be debating about the best way to roll out UBI than whether to call something "main" or "master".