I disagree w a few things: - Of course no one on this site is a billionaire (possible, but unlikely), but many (the majority on social media given billionaire censorship) are working for billionaires. Some know it, some dont, but either way it's essential to counter. - Rarely have I seen a fighting. I often see those working for billionaires attacking the person rather than the argument, but it's rare to see that other person stoop entirely to their level.
- Disagreeing is not "fighting". It is essential to having discussion to get at the truth. Sticking to what's common is how you get an echo chamber. - 99% is not a monolith. It is comprised of unique individuals, each w their own interests, perspectives, etc. That's ok, that's the natural state. No reason to unnaturally force some common monolith.

To illustrate, 2 examples: - the enemy of freedom is the keneysian monetary system (slavery). Sound money, like that defined in the constitution, naturally prohibits slavery through counterfeiting and is the solution to ~all problems. However, the 1% and part of the 99% working for billionaires are pro-slavery (ie they want to print to steal others labor to use as they please). Lumping 99% together is grouping people w those who are/wish to further enslave them. - those attacking innocent people & the constitution, pushing agenda 21 for the 1% are working for & cheerled by globalists/billionaires. There is naturally no common ground bw humans and those attacking them, be it billionaires or those serving their agenda.

Tl;dr To encourage the 99% to be a singular unit is disingenous & counterproductive, as it attempts to group humans w those attacking & trying to enslave them (which comprise both 1% and 99%). Commonality (being in 99%) is not the discriminating factor; pro-human/pro-freedom vs anti-human/pro-slavery is, and there is nothing wrong w the former disagreeing w the latter.