The disgusting racism in the Immigration thread

"History not our racists in the Republic strongest subject either. That’s why nothing they say warrants respect."

You used an image of Northern Ireland's flag to try and push your point or agenda or whatever your attempting to do. I know the difference between irony, and also the difference between racism which seems some people here can't explain.

History and Racism are also completely different. But going on whatever your trying to push here, the people in Northern Ireland who are burning families out of their homes due to their backgrounds and beliefs with the UK flag are thugs. Doesn't matter, end of discussion and I'm assuming that's the narrative you are trying to push here. These same thugs were also the ones who burned Catholics out of their houses due to their belief's, so anyone saying "well done" to them hasn't a clue.

Now in terms of your other comment about History not our racists in the Republic strongest subject either. Want to explain what your attempting to mean by this? I would say like any culture we have our share of bigots/racists and far-rights and I mean this as the extremes. Like I'd say on an overall percentage of our population it would be quiet low and be less than 5% and that's being more than generous.

And speaking of history, and your political correctness, is the term "Dubh le daoine" now offensive to you?

Plenty were well aware that she was born here, but for the Rose competition, which is seen as a competition about Irish people who have lineage, history, parentage and cultural-familial ties to Ireland, she was seen as an odd choice; and because posters aired this, we have claims they are disgusting racists……..absolute nonsense

A point was made in the reverse, which is very true….a white red haired Irish lady representing Somalia in a similar competition (because she was born in Somalia) would most definitely be met with the same quizzical narrative by Irish people and by Somalian people!

This is NOT people displaying disgusting racism. Its people displaying normal thoughts and views!

I was not referring to that X post, which I have not seen. I simply made a point about some the posts on the Somalian lady's Rose selection. I replied to your post to do this, and in your post there is NO mention of any X post

You are worse than a politician. You're the exact same as the posters you're giving out about, you think you've found some 'gotcha' and are determined to see it out to the end, while ignoring everything else that proves you wrong. Why are you point blank refusing to answer the questions or address the points I'm putting to you?

Is it because your entire argument is nonsense and crumbles at the first attempt to dissect it?

I know what I think.

If someone used the N-word, then turned around and said "I wasn't using it to refer to black people specifically, therefore it's okay" do you think that's okay? Why am I still asking you questions after you've refused to answer the previous 20

Referring to distinct groups of non-white people as coloured is offensive, and racist, no matter what context it's being used in. End of story. You've admitted calling black people coloured is offensive. I've asked you repeatedly now why it's not offensive to call any other non-white person coloured and your refusal to engage says much more than any answer would.

My point is that originally the word "coloured" replaced the n word and was considered acceptable. There are people out there who haven't caught up with the times, that makes them uneducated (I wouldn't call it ignorance) but being uneducated is hardly disgusting racism.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-30999175

"It was also seen as an acceptable word to use in much of the UK until the 1960s and 1970s."

"There are places in the world where "coloured" is used without offence - for example in South Africa, where it refers to people who have multiple heritages".

As an example of rampant racism, it is not.

Ah, this old chestnut. I only mentioned a while ago about the Boards mentality of attacking the poster instead of their points. So I'm irritated, now am I? Same as how people who can't back up their arguments paint others as upset, or annoyed, or any other term to make them look irrational because you can't undermine their argument, so you undermine their character?

This is your last chance. If you cannot answer this question, I will not be engaging with you any more and leave you to stick your head in the sand as you ignore all the elephants in the room. One last attempt to see if you actually have a spine or not, instead of dancing around the uncomfortable truths that poke holes in your argument:

Do you think it's wrong to call an Indian person 'coloured'?

Because there are only two answers……..either the answer is yes, in which case your 'hE WuZN't talkINg AboUT bLAcK PeoPlE" argument is completely irrelevant, or the answer is no, which means you are comfortable referring to POC using a racist term, which makes you a racist and your opinion can be disregarded entirely.

Either way, your entire position in this debate is crumbling beneath you. I predict you'll refuse to answer, like you already have done multiple times, because you are fully aware that referring to someone as coloured is racist.

Eh, didn't we already agree that referring to a black person as coloured is wrong? Now, non black and non white people. To refer to this group as coloured….do I think it is wrong? Not really, and just because society tries to say this is wrong does not mean it is wrong. It's far from some exact science. So, what do we call people that are not black and white? We call them a person of colour, or people of colour And you are getting worked up because the term coloured person or coloured people is wrong….grand, we'll go with people of colour!

Think about this for a second: had that poster said "no people of color are newsreaders" instead of "no coloured newsreaders", we probably wouldn't be discussing this; yet here you are off this one sentence OUT with you're a racist card. That is terrible.

My mistake, I thought you were using it as an example of rampant racism.

The problem you have is that there are accusations of rampant racism being thrown around, and with all due respect to the other issues you raise, that isn't it.

Your rush to use a racist term to refer to anyone who isn't white, whether you admit it's racist or not, is terrible. Really is.

I agree that it is racist, but because of the historical context of once acceptable usage, it is hardly rampant racism.