> How many American citizens cared about freeing the slaves?
> How many people cared about the rights of black Americans in the 1950s?
How many?
From my understanding it was in most cases a significant minority. Significantly larger than the opposition.
This strikes me as being categorically wrong and is not backed by any data that I am aware of. Civil rights were and in some cases still are actively retarded by white business owners, and there were already businesses set up to cater to minorities. It's not like there was some huge untapped pool of consumers sitting around waiting to be liberated so they could spend their savings.
> A very recent example is how the media pushes women to work, and LGBT issues so hard: those demographics are the ones that consume the most, so they need to make them work and appeal to them.
These people already worked and were already consuming prior to media attention. You think LGBT people just didn't buy shit before it was more socially acceptable to be out? Also, you have your causality reversed. The media shows people what the people want to see because that generates clicks and engagement. It makes no sense for them to show people unpopular agenda driven content that they don't like because it will lose them money.
> How is killing Facebook going to help business?
A. Destroying social media would actually probably dramatically improve efficiency at most businesses as people waste enormous amounts of time fucking around on it while at work.
B. The people currently at Facebook could use their collective intelligence to actually build useful products instead of trying to show ads to people or encouraging them to engage with what are ultimately useless, bullshit, slice of life trivialities.
C. I don't care whether killing or regulating Facebook helps or hurts business in the long run. If their practices are harming society, the company needs to be regulated or destroyed. Inaction just encourages moral hazard and / or signals to other companies that this behavior is acceptable.
And they started to say "yes" to marriage equality in the 1990s, but "no" to marriage equality before that because it was profitable in the 1990s but unprofitable before that?
I'm sorry, but when you look at history and at current events, it is quite clear that although many "progressive" causes are actually good for the economy and yes, businesses make more money from a more equitable distribution of freedom and power...
The overall profit motive simply doesn't work create the change, otherwise these issues would have been settled fifty years ago when people pointed that out. Instead, businesses will talk about how they must have the freedom not to hire gay sales clerks because customers won't like being served by homosexuals...
Until society changes, and then suddenly businesses are sponsoring floats in the Pride Parade.
---
Ok, I think I am going to go this way, and you are going to go that way. You have said what you wanted to say, I have listened, and I have said what I wanted to say.
Let's check back in twenty years instead of arguing with each other now.
How many men cared about women having the vote?
How many American citizens cared about freeing the slaves?
How many people cared about the rights of black Americans in the 1950s?
How many people care about kneeling during the anthem now?
---
It's always "Nobody except for a few ideologues and some virtue signalling leftists..." Until it isn't. Meanwhile, some people just keep plugging away at it. Perseverance, aided and abetted by other social factors, aided and abetted by a few unpredictable notorious events, over time...
That's what creates change.