There's a grain of truth here, but only a grain. Who hasn't seen an obviously affluent TikTok Tot (fancy home studio, high end video gear, expensive clothes and makeup) trying to gain clout by talking about the very same injustice of which they are the beneficiary? Pretty annoying, yes. But at the same time, the fact that an idea is expressed for clout doesn't make the idea wrong. We could debate "defund the police" all day, but whether TikTok Tot supports it is irrelevant. That's called well poisoning, close relative of ad hominem, and it's a fallacy. It's the fallacy that pervades OP.
In some quarters, superfluous weaponry is a status symbol. In related quarters, it might be ostentatious displays of crosses and other religious symbols. Does that mean guns or religion are bad? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but their use as status symbols doesn't determine the answer. What's more interesting is that OP omits such examples. All of their examples feed into a very particular political narrative, and cherry-picking is another thing that should make readers suspicious.
In the end, the article starts with a small and somewhat interesting observation, which is great, but then ascribes to it greater (and more particular) significance than it deserves.