Not assumptions?

Sounds narcissistic. Not saying you are.

Reverse racism/sexuality isn't actually a thing, usually it's brought up due to a narcissistic personality trait, not saying you are, but you seem to be parroting the same droll lines as all the other conservatives push in the media.

I.E the traits are:
- Lack a care or understanding of others.
- Have a lacking need or unwillingness to recognize the need and feelings of others.
- May feel slighted. (I.E. Other individuals getting support so they are on equal footing as you, and you receive nothing.)

Being a straight white male still gives you an advantage in the world over all else, not just socially, but also often financially and more.

The funny part is the tantrums when that starts to change. And it should change.
The USA has such a rich cultural background and should be brought to the foreground, not pushed away.

But yes, there are some unsavory characters in the world... But when you negatively attribute negative connotations to an "aspect" of someone constantly, then everyone gets branded with the same brush over time and you build a negative stigma.
Just remember being African American is an aspect of someone, it's not who they are.

Same as being LGBTQI, you are the same as everyone else, it's just one small aspect of who you are is different... But from certain people, that is all they can see.

So there's no room for over achievers due to those with naturally higher IQ, that gives them an advantage? Do we dumb them down or make a separate easier path for the average person, and yet another for the least fortunate mentally? Will the over achievers accept that?

Elon himself is a brand.
Trump himself is a brand.

Whenever someone talks about Rockets and Cars, they talk about Elon Musk.
Elon is the brand that sells his other brands.

Trump is the same... Yes he has a ton tied up in real estate, but much of it has his brand on it. I.E. Trump Tower.
Trump is the brand.

I will agree that Russell Brand is a Brand, but aspects of people don't make them brands.

I'm not aware of the working policies over in the United States.
But here in Australia, which is based on policies from the UK and Europe, we are a little fairer and forward thinking.
All apprenticeships and internships are paid. As they should be.

If you work, you get paid. It is that simple. No if's or but's. You get paid.

I am managing a multi million dollar company as my day job, If I ask any of my employees to stay later, even though they are on a salary, I pay them overtime at $60 per hour.
They get annual leave, sick leave, carers leave, maternity leave, so they also get paid for time off.

Do the right thing by your employees and they give back just as much, it keeps them motivated with positive reinforcement.
When you start making demands, introduce negativity, they push back... Because they are people with feelings and you loose productivity for it... Or you end up with high employee turnover, so you never retain a working base which is highly skilled and knows the business.

In the US the idea is that you will basically make up the difference and more later, if the business operates that way. Some do pay right away, though poor wages. If you're a terrible worker or bad fit, it's easier for the business to fire you before you're a paid employee. Usually an apprenticeship or internship is going to eventually get you a higher paying more stable job if you stick with it and work hard. Doesn't always go that way, but depends on your work ethic as well as timing and luck. Even if the company let's you go for whatever reason, you've still got the experience, which is better than not having a position period and learning nothing.

I wouldn't say one way or the other is clearly better. It depends on each individual to decide based on their situation.

They were rich prior, yes.
But their success has catapulted because of Drama which sells their brand.

In saying that, I never heard of either before the bullshit started to happen, so they weren't world-wide renowned like they are now.

Trump was born rich, yet lost much of it many times and made it back. Elon wasn't exactly rich until Paypal and what he did with the money wasn't exactly the risky type of move most rich people make.

In North America most people have always known Trump, and Musk was well known as soon as Tesla hit the market, far before he became popular.

The drama has made them both more popular or famous, and does rub off on their brands a bit, mostly in terms of free marketing, but unless drama is bad, and that bad drama leads to big business gains, green business in Musk's case, I don't see the problem in the grand scheme.

When you are firing people because you don't agree with what they say, work ethic doesn't actually come into it.
He needed to sit down with these people, identify the key issues and work to resolving them in a positive and constructive manner.

The guy just doesn't like other people expressing their right to free speech.

Plenty of people temp banned or permanently banned off Twitter would've liked a sit down chat as well, but never got it, just silence.

Everyone knows what woke stands for, and when Twitter's own merch says #staywoke it's no surprise why they operated the way they did.

Elon recently pointed out not one progressive user account was ever permanently banned, while conservatives were coincidentally.

The guy is simply leveling the playing field while giving those who dished it out, or who backed it, a taste of their own medicine. The hope is this will snap people out of the division mindset and fix the problem more quickly like ripping off the band aid. We'll see if it works.

I thought conservatives didn't believe in polls?

Sure they do, as long as there's other checks and balances along with them. Elon being that at Twitter I guess.

As for political polls specifically, ya, conservatives don't believe most of them and for good reason.

It concerns me, because I actually give a shit about people, especially when they are treated unfairly.

I don't live my life in a bubble where I am only concerned about myself.

Yet you said what other people do doesn't concern you.

Lots of people seem to care a lot about Ukraine for example, but the help they've been given is a joke based on what could be done.

Live your life 99% perfect, where it's beyond obvious you care for many, yet screw up just that once, and the masses will come for everything. Be careful who you care for.

What am I reading here...

I have no clue what you're talking about. This isn't some "blacks vs Jews" thing.

Kanye, Candice, Kyrie, Chappelle, etc. All recently in the news for being antisemitic and all being black.

I was making a point taken from jokes Chappelle told on SNL that all weren't entirely a joke, about victimhood and who's allowed to say what.

Firstly it's nonsense. Jewish people might have a larger than expected influence, but the idea that they control The media, the government, etc is nonsense.

I never said they did. I just made a general point about anyone in control.

Secondly, sometimes the issue isn't the idea itself, but what kinds of actions that idea motivates people to do. The flat earth idea is just dumb by itself. But if people were throwing out conspiracy theories that say Nasa is lying to us to control the planet and people start seriously believing that idea and start getting motivated to start taking guns down to Nasa, then that's a problem. For historical context, the "Jews control our lives" conspiracy theory was a major driving force for the Holocaust. 

In a world of micro aggressions and triggering, anything and everything can be a bad idea, when it comes to what it could potentially lead to.

Russia stole the election and Trump, the President, is a Russian asset, was also a control related non conspiracy theory apparently, that led to political chaos that remains today, and for nothing in the end. Plenty of people still think those things are definitely true. Does something need to be done about that?

What's wrong with being able to reply and point out its nonsense, as long as you're given the ability to?

What's unclear?

Either nonsense or something geographically very limited, because I know for sure you don't see that kind of stuff where I live (well I'm sure there's some as long as there's people, but not to an extent where it's at all a problem).

People were predicting Twitter to shutdown, I'm still using it what's or who is running it still?

Wow at the people trying to say whites are not being singled out for being the most hateful people in history.
Look at nick cannons post about white people. We have celebs even saying this shit and they got a huge platform to speak to saying how all white people are evil.
They are doing what they are saying they are fighting against and thats racism.

Come up with some better quality content instead of parroting others.

They weren't assumptions, they were statements.

That is a false equivalency.

Building foundations for equality and equity in every facet of society does not mean that highly intelligent, high achieving individuals are at a disadvantage.

The issue that you don't seem to grasp is that, when someone is LGBTQI or have a different cultural/ethnic background, can be denied equivalent roles or opportunities, even when they have the same level of intellectual fortitude and would hypothetical be capable of the same achievements.

You likely have never been on the receiving end of this, but it actually does happen and still does happen.

Stop trolling.

Are you really trying to justify people working and not being paid for it?

I think you aren't grasping something here.

I am managing a company, I know how these things actually work... You have what is called a "Probation Period". - Usually a company will hire you as a casual or permanent employee, but for the Probation Period (Usually 3-6 months) you can be fired at the drop of the hat for any number of reasons.

Casual employees can just have their hours cut down to 0 even 12 months down the line, they are casual and don't have guaranteed hours.

If you walk into a company and are employed by the company, even if you are just doing training or a few trial shifts, you are taking someones time... And they need to be paid for it.

Apprenticeships and Internships are also paid here, because it's the right thing to do. - They start off at a lower wage, but as they invest more of their time and their skills improve, their rate of pay increases rather substantially. As it should.

End of the day people need to eat and pay bills, the only way that happens is if you actually pay them for it.

Clearly the American way is inferior to the working class.

I doubt Trump was ever actually poor.
I.E. Living on the streets with just the clothes on his back.

You are right, Twitter didn't sit down and give those individuals that opportunity and that was clearly a fault of Twitter.

Still, being a hypocrite is not a good thing. - Clearly even yourself can recognize that?

So basically you only believe polls you agree with?

You seem to be confused, so I will dumb it down further.

What people do, doesn't concern me.

What does concern me is people being marginalized or mistreated, remember I am a first responder, life comes first, I have morals.

When we talk about "racism", there are two different kinds.

There's prejudice based on skin color, which is probably what most people think about when talking about racism. 

Then there's systemic racism, which is the more academic definition of racism, and it's the one that more left wingers are talking about, when they talk about racism. Systemic racism is prejudice with power. The vast majority of rich people are white, the vast majority of presidents and politicians in the US are white.

The big reason why racism is a big issue isn't so much because of the prejudice, but because there's a power dynamic. And yeah I get it, it's hard to talk about something abstract like racial power differences. But we can see that in statistics. 

We can see that black people are more likely to get arrested for drug use, even if their drug use isn't any different from white people. We can see that white people are again, more likely to be in positions of power (politicians, billionaires, millionaires). We can see that black people are more likely to be falsely in jail, they're less likely to get out early. Etc. Etc.

In my country, we have differences in legal code to deal with differences. There is injury, which is a broad definition of moral aggression and can feature racial connotations among other distinctions 

Penal Code - Decree-Law No. 2.848, of December 7, 1940.

§ 3 If the insult consists of the use of elements referring to race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin or the condition of an elderly person or person with a disability: (Wording given by Law No. 10.741, 2003)
Penalty - imprisonment from one to three years and a fine.

(google translation)

A white person can prosecute a black person for injury if they feel insulted and is very likely to win, although most of the judges will hardly add racial distinction to the penalty because this isn't the dominant jurisprudence. The most likely penalty is six months of detention (community service likely) and a fine

And there is racism, which is a different kind of crime:

Law No. 7716, of January 5, 1989.
Art. 20. Practicing, inducing or inciting discrimination or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin.
Penalty: imprisonment from one to three years and a fine.

§ 2 If any of the crimes provided for in the caput is committed through the media or publication of any nature:
Penalty: imprisonment from two to five years and a fine.

The general understanding of "discrimination and prejudice" here does not mean injury, instead, we are talking about blocking/hindering people from social life, jobs, and services among others. 

Racism needs some cultural and historical background to be understood as applicable. The law is very specific in the wording and even gives examples of what can be considered racism, for instance, nazism advertising is cited and the penalty is two to five years of reclusion. We don't have KKK in Brazil, but if we had this is another kind of example that would be likely to be amended. 

We also understand racism does not need a person to be the victim because we understand racism as a crime against the social group instead of an individual. It would be characterized as racism if anyone posted mockery and disrespect for the lifestyle of indigenous people using stereotypes on social media. Hate speech could also be punished by this law

So, as a Brazillian, I do not recognize the existence of racism against white people. It just does not fit in our legal system