Life is hard

Iain said:

It is being done for the right reasons which is why I have no issue with it.

And there is where you lose me.

I am never going to support racism and we will never get past it when so many are proud to be openly racist. 

Touay said:

it isn't an exclusion of MEN, it is an exclusion of WHITE MEN.  If you reduce the pool of candidates, you MUST reduce the standard in order to get the numbers .... and it is only the defense of the nation, it isn't like maintaining standards is important.

I get your point although I don't agree with it. Let me pose a different question in light of the focus here.

If we never redress the balance in the recruitment to reflect the populations racial makeup, how can we have organisations like the defence industry or police force be representative of us?

At the moment we have a largely white male police force managing a population which is 18% non-white. That is 11 million people being policed by a group that is of a different race to them (8% of police are non-white).

I think the defence industry is about the same at 9.6% non white.

Stats are all culled from the .gov.uk sites and accurate as of 2022.

What is even worse is the female representation:

Women are 50% of the population but make up only 11.3% of the armed forces. They make up 32.4% of the police force which is better.

Standards can be developed and trained into the recruits for almost every case so I don't think that is an issue.

Looking at the stats it seems clear that these organisations have been practicing racist and sexist hiring practices for ever and these are now being reversed which is why the long standing privilage of us white males is taking a hit.

It is being done for the right reasons which is why I have no issue with it.

Iain said:

You can't argue that is is because of men being stronger and better able to fly a plane

Especially as they had to fly planes during WW2 with very little training...

Iain said:

It seems the least we as a society can do to redress a historical inequity to give women an equal chance, and that needs to start with bringing them up to parity in the workforce, so an adjustment period needs to happen.

Thank you.

I'm not sure when you joined this forum, you seem to have just crept in recently, but I really value your contribution.

it isn't an exclusion of MEN, it is an exclusion of WHITE MEN.  If you reduce the pool of candidates, you MUST reduce the standard in order to get the numbers .... and it is only the defense of the nation, it isn't like maintaining standards is important.

I will never support racist hiring practices, not matter what excuses you make for perpetuating racism.

I'm sorry the world you live in is so negative.  perhaps broaden your sources of news.

Considering we now know the police turned a blind eye and and even actively supported the pakistani community graping hundreds of thousands of british children over the past 40 years ... I cannot take you seriously.

I know you are not going to believe me as you are a true-believer of the woke religion, but there are real negative consequences in believing thing that are false ....

And no I do not support the police, they treat EVERYONE like Sh1t!

Touay said:

anything and everything. we even have the RAF and Police saying they will not hire ANY white men at the moment

That could be because they do not represent the population - why have 95% male employees when only 50% of people are male.

You can't argue that is is because of men being stronger and better able to fly a plane as that is only a small part of the requirement for the many roles in these organisations and I've known plenty of women who could compete physically.

It seems the least we as a society can do to redress a historical inequity to give women an equal chance, and that needs to start with bringing them up to parity in the workforce, so an adjustment period needs to happen.

You can talk about "the best person for the job" being a factor, but I think women are quite capable of doing the same role in this day and age so we need to allow the short term rebalancing of recruitment to get to this state.

When you hear about British police being routinely found to be institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic, do you just dismiss that as woke propaganda or something? Or are all these non-white, non-male people you believe are dominating their recruitment keeping their boots on the necks of people from their background for whatever purpose?

I don't know what I expect from a discussion with someone in a different reality from me, so I'm out.

anything and everything. we even have the RAF and Police saying they will not hire ANY white men at the moment.  

I Sperg said:

An illegal immigrantt?

That's such a limited appreciation of the vast queue of people who have been prioritised over white working age heterosexual healthy males for the last fifty years.

So 1973 to 2023 illegal immigrants etc etc were prioritised over 'white working age heterosexual healthy males' ?

Prioritised in what?  where?  what country? etc etc.

Please supply some examples (only males of course, as women are excluded unless you see them as a part of the 'vast queue of people'?).

An illegal immigrantt?

That's such a limited appreciation of the vast queue of people who have been prioritised over white working age heterosexual healthy males for the last fifty years... 

If I were a paraplegic with down syndrome who also happened to be autistic, I think some support would be there but then again [removed by mod].

NAS86592 said:

Tomorrow I will be attending ---for the first time --- an ASD meeting held in my local Library. You can't get much quieter than that!

How will you communicate? Braille? ;)

Good call though.

As a Jew, I wish not to express over/under tones of my beliefs on anyone and would feel uncomfortable doing so. Conversely, I would equally feel uncomfortable  in a social engagement within a church or mosque.

Touay said:

Does anyone have suggestions for quiet places to meet? 

Tomorrow I will be attending ---for the first time --- an ASD meeting held in my local Library. You can't get much quieter than that!

Looks like NAS deleted my example which simply was an ASD meeting on Zoom---some people!

This could be an example of a solution to those who would rather not engage face to face

I think your initial premise is very relevant to this forum.

Are we Autists going to be a productive, leading, upstanding part of society, or are we going to present as  "disabled whiny losers"?

A few of us here actually are productive and helpful towards the others but a distressing number of our posts, are just needy and truculent in their nature revealing what used to be called (correctly IMHO) a "lack of moral fibre", which for some inexplicable reason is an attitude that has been gainiing ground across our society for fifty years or more now. 

I don't see the overall gains either in standard of living OR quality of life yet... Do you?

I hoped that we Autists would use our "social isolation" to obtain a point of view that is more reality based rather than derived from social programming, and perhaps band together to create a vision of a new world (dis) order based on rational and good natured thinking, but then I came here and realised that I was under an illusion, it was fantastic thinking, we aren't empowered as a group by our social isolation at all...   

Try not to guage my view in the context of the present economic situation we are currently in. My overview of the UK dates back to my initial observations since 1971 when I first landed on these shores as a young man..

I have witnessed many many years of a deterioration of self reliance in general terms both here and across the pond.  In answer to your question:

Iain said:

how do you think those of limited financial independence can get to the level of self realisation that you have?

I come from a Capitalist society where everyone is NOT equal, and to follow socialisms economic banalities is likely one of many other socioeconomic reasons leading up to the financial plight we are currently in---we are broke. Limited financial independence is a global fact of life.  Living within one's means is a very basic understanding of taking control for those of us who are not the needy in need. But this really is not the platform for such discussion.

To be very simplistic then:

You resent ONE group of people and he resents another group of people, so how will this resentment bring about positive change for all?

To put it even more simplistically, a society of people who are motivated to take care of their own needs, and when they produce a surplus, can trade for their wants, is more likely to survive than a society where everyone just takes from the common pot, until it's empty with no effort being put into production.because that is "someone else's problem".

The question is not "who's right" (that'd be too simple, the answer would be "me of course!") but "How do we make this work better for all?"

In my opinion this question has been worked for thousands of years, we just started to get a bit of an idea, then the devils minions messed it all up...

I may well be wrong however, but logic dictates either 50% or 100% of any two people who have different opinions HAVE to be wrong otherwise there can be no rational argument. And if I happen to be correct in my opinion, it goes against what most of the rest of you seem believe, and will be ignored, so it has little perceived value really...

I'm O.K. with that, until people start using force to prosecute their opinions that differ from my own...

I think a certain amount of resentment is a necessary force for positive change. We should resent those who steal from us and pollute our water to line their pockets.

We should absolutely not resent people because we think their input to our society doesn't make them worthy of any standard of living beyond their daily gruel, which is how that original statement reads to me.