The disgusting racism in the Immigration thread

Not everyone owns a pub, or are known as publicans. However, if you're someone in that profession you'll certainly have come across certain people that you do not want on your premises. A lot of those who are not wanted on the publicans premises are usually from one grouping. But, if they are refused service they can sue in court and in 99% of cases win their case. Does this make the publican racist? In my opinion it most certainly doesn't. I'm sure the good people on here would have no issue serving them, living next door to them, their family marrying into their families, etc, etc. Sure it's an issue, they're not all a problem, but with alcohol thrown into the equation it gets "heated". I think it was Enda Kenny who gave certain people a special status. He made a massive mistake in my opinion. Am I a racist? I would definitely say; NO I'm not. I'd be fairly sure lots would differ though, especially the do gooders. There's a few of them about and they love making noise. That's all for now folks, bye bye.

If the original post wasn't sanctioned - hence your complaint about it - what makes you think that it would be sanctioned if posted in this thread?

That excuse doesn't make sense. In fact, it negates what feedback/help desk is all about. If I think something is wrong/racist/abusive/trollish etc. and nothing has been done about it, surely the next step is to post it in this thread and ask whether it was an oversight or are you getting it wrong.

Your view is this..think about this for a minute…

Joe and Josephine Bloggs out on a sunny day in Dublin and Joe turns to his wife and says "wow, isn't it great to see so many coloured people in town. Great cosmopolitan feel to the city." Joe said this with no meaning to be racist and not knowing the term could be deemed offensive, and his only crime was he got the wording wrong…he should have said "people of color." And here you are wanting to jump in with the you're a racist card…

I'll put it back to you……….If he turned around and said "there's loads of n*****s around here" without knowing the history or meaning of that word, is that sentence racist? You say no, I guarantee you you're in the tiny minority who do.

And again, that's not what happened. The person I called out for using racist terminology (note: I didn't call them a racist, I said their words were racist) is not completely ignorant of the implications of the term 'coloured' as evidenced by his use of the term 'people of colour' later on in the exact same post.

You are again dancing around the issue in a pathetic attempt to excuse someone using racist terminology for some reason. You're pissing into the wind, here. There is no way to come out of this without exposing the flaws in your own thinking, and thinking "it's okay to call brown people 'coloured'" is a seriously racist flaw.

An incredibly stupid comparison in 2026 to try say the N word being said about a cohort of people is similar to mixing up people of colour vs. coloured people. For the record had Joe Bloggs said the N scenario to Josephine, then Joe is a nasty racist!

So, at least we know your clear views here. Nobody, in your mind is getting away with anything said no matter what the context, level, severity, significance etc….all labeled racists!!!

You are missing the point entirely, it must be deliberate at this point.

That's not what happened, despite your many attempts at gaslighting people into believing it. The poster did not mix up coloured vs POC. This has been explained to you multiple times, it's even expanded upon in my post that you just quoted FFS. They used POC correctly, AFTER they had used 'coloured' incorrectly.

You made a claim that using the term 'coloured' without realising the connotations was inherently NOT racist.

I asked you whether or not using the term 'N****R' without realising the connotations is racist, and your refusal to even address this question speaks volumes. You are afraid to address it because it proves that your other argument about being ignorant of the connotations is baseless. This is a cowardly way to debate anything.

Syd said……

However when you are shown that the phrase you use is racist, and you use it after being shown why its racist, then that makes you a racist as its no longer from a place of ignorance but a place of choice.

and you said "Yep…agreed here…."

Using 'coloured' to refer to anybody's skin tone is an outdated, outrageous and outright racist term. End of story. You are on record as saying that it's not, and that calling brown people coloured is okay. That makes you a racist. It has been explained to you, and you're still digging your heels in. In the words of Syd, which you agree with, remember, that makes you a racist. Are you now admitting that you're racist? Or are you gonna tie yourself up in knots now to wriggle out of the hole you've put yourself in?

Tell me when did I say that? Oh wait I didn't. Never even came close to mentioning anything to do with that so now it's more slander from you to try and get an invalid point across because I don't agree with your nonsense.

Again…you're wanting to label a person who misuses phrases coloured people vs. people of colour, as "outrageous" racists…

Again, this poster did not misuse the phrase or get them confused. They used both, which implies that they know the difference. You're bending over backwards to defend his use of a racist word/phrase, despite the evidence that he is aware of the existence of the non-racist version of the same phrase.

Using the racist one, when you know the difference between the two, is, by definition, racist. I never called anyone an 'outrageous' racist. I said the term is outrageous AND racist. There is a difference. For someone so hellbent on the fine details of the meaning of words, I'd expect you to realise this.

And as usual you're tying yourself up in knots not being able to comprehend things.

This is just you throwing my own arguments back at me because you cannot come up with your own. This is another famous trope associated with posters on Boards who have no faith in their own argument. Straight out of the Trump playbook, also.

It's simple…really simple: I would not automatically label a person a racist PURELY off them uttering a racist sentence. I would also look for meaning, intention, context etc. You would….I think this is wrong.

I would not. This is you getting the wrong end of the stick, deliberately I'd wager. I didn't label them a racist. I said the words they used were racist. Again there's a difference. Then you jumped in with your gotcha because he never specifically said 'black people', even though 99.9% of the people who are reading this thought the same as I did.

I AM labelling you a racist, however, because of your comments around being allowed to call brown people coloured.

Syd responded to my post and I agreed with his take, but you can't interpret that back and forth correctly, unfortunately.

Oh yeah, How come? Why not explain yourself instead of just telling me I'm wrong? Is it because you can't?

You agreed with his take, that anyone who continues to use racist words despite being informed that they're racist, is a racist……but you disagree that you yourself should be called a racist, despite the fact that you continue to use racist words even though you have been informed that they're racist? This is just you excusing your racism, I'm afraid.

Maybe because you auto want to think anyone and everyone has to be a racist no matter what the context.

This is as far from the truth as could possibly be. Another pathetic attempt to attack the poster instead of the post.

Meet ya half way….saying something you know is racist to be hurtful or demeaning means you are a racist, or you are being racist. Saying something that you really did not know was racist and you never meant harm/offense does not automatically make you a racist.

I agree with this 100%. I'd go one further, however. Saying something that is racist, even if you are unaware that it's racist, still means the words/term you've used is racist. Which, again, is not the case here. Gen. Zhukov knew the meaning of the word and the connotations associated with it.

Here's another one for you:

• You have been informed that calling brown people 'coloured' is racist.
• You disagree.
• You will continue to do so, even though you are aware of the fact that it is hurtful and demeaning.
• This makes you a racist, in your own words.
• Do you agree with this?
• If not, please explain yourself, because it looks like you're confirming that your use of a racist word to describe someone means you qualify as a racist.

No, there is very little difference between the two, it's almost negligible. They're both equally offensive. You are basically trying to tell everyone that there is a difference between "come here, n****r" and "come here, you, damned n****r". The use of 'damn' isn' the issue here, it's the use of the word 'coloured.' There is no acceptable usage of the word when referring to a person's race or ethnic background. Zero, zilch. Nada.

I'm not grandstanding, I'm telling you out straight……referring to someone as 'coloured' is using racist terminology.

End of story.

You can disagree all you want, the fact is that 'coloured' is a pejorative term that has no place in civilised society.

You've now edited this post to add the last paragraph:

And btw, I never said calling a brown person coloured is okay…no idea where you pull these things from. I said I didn't think saying coloured people was necessarily wrong.

"I never said it's okay, I just said it's not wrong"

If it's not wrong, then it's okay. You are now scrambling, and backtracking, because your words have come back to bite you in the arse. This is what happens when you realise that you've been caught up in your own nonsense.