Mumsnet censorship

[anonymouselephantx]

Mumsnet has been deleting any comment at all that criticises Charlie Kirk... just because he has died does not mean he is infallible. He is still an evil person who did and said evil things, contributed to so much suffering of families at the hands of ICE etc., mocked the Palestinians undergoing a genocide? Mumsnet, disturbing much? I had to get MN by email to delete a thread of mine as I was getting bullied and people were making personal attacks against me (the talk guidelines say personal attacks will be deleted, yet I had to BEG for this), but they are censoring anything anyone says about Charlie Kirk? Why are we not allowed to have freedom of speech and freedom to debate, especially when it is someone who did and said SO MUCH EVIL!

I do mourn Palestinians. I cry almost every time I see the pictures and videos coming out of Gaza. These are innocent people, including children, being slaughtered. If anyone doesn’t feel sadness for that, that’s what I find incomprehensible.
Charlie Kirk, on the other hand, openly did not care about those deaths, defended Israel’s actions, opposed a ceasefire, and consistently dismissed the suffering of Palestinians, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and others. That’s why I don’t feel compelled to mourn him.
There’s a difference between recognising the humanity of victims of violence and choosing not to extend sympathy to someone who spent his career justifying or even celebrating that violence. That’s not “hate,” it’s refusing to be selective in my compassion.

Let's also not forget he said children should be encouraged to watch live executions.

It's obviously terrible that a man has been shot and killed. Violence like that is incomprehensible to me, and of course it's more than terrible for his wife and children, and indeed traumatising for many who witnessed it.

He was however not simply a man who in good faith wanted to talk to people with different opinions to him in order to teach and learn, which seems to be the framing since his shooting - he was an active promoter of misinformation (or, in old language, lies) about things like the validity of the 2020 election or the attack on Paul Pelosi. 'His' views over time had become more and more extreme and fed into more and more conspiracies as he built his business. He never seemed to change his opinions in his 'debates'. And indeed he had many opinions that I disagree with (about race, about abortion, about feminism) but he also spread untruths about which there can be no agreement or disagreement - I know them to be false.

I condemn his murder but also condemn the cynical manipulation he practised in his lifetime.

I’m not a sociopath, and I’m not claiming moral superiority. What I’m saying is that I don’t feel obliged to sympathise with someone whose life’s work was causing harm to groups I care about.
Charlie Kirk wasn’t simply “someone with different views.” He actively campaigned against immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women’s rights, and Palestinians and he did it with huge resources and influence and MONEY. That’s not neutral debate, that’s using power to make other people’s lives harder.
I don’t celebrate his death, but I won’t mourn him either. My empathy is for the victims of the policies and rhetoric he pushed, not for the person who spent his career dismissing their suffering.

Again, did he actually say that?

'What I’m saying is that I don’t feel obliged to sympathise with someone whose life’s work was causing harm to groups I care about.'

Again, that is fine don't sympathise. Just stop with the 'evil' and Hitler comparisons.

You disagree with his beliefs and that is fine, sadly many people particularly lefties seem to think different opinions are bad. They aren't.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.

Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

Just saw this post online which captures my thoughts perfectly:

Stop trying to shame people for not mourning Charlie Kirk.
He wasn’t just “a conservative we disagreed with.” He was a fascist organizer who built his career spreading racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant hate, actively harming marginalized communities every single day.
If you feel compelled to send his family condolences, fine, that’s your personal choice. But don’t turn around and scold others for refusing to shed tears over a man who dedicated his life to dehumanizing and endangering them. This doesn’t make you a “better person,” and if you’re a Christian, it doesn’t make you closer to going heaven.
It just shows you don’t stand for anything.
Where were your sympathy posts for the thousands of Palestinians killed in Gaza, deaths Charlie Kirk celebrated and justified? Where’s your compassion for the immigrants torn from their families by ICE, an institution Kirk defended? Where’s your energy for the trans kids, the Muslims, the Black and brown communities he spent his career attacking?
Empathy is not owed to oppressors. Mourning is not mandatory. Pretending that “civility” in the face of fascism makes you morally superior is nothing but cowardice.
Y’all give me a headache.

Yes.
""Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised. I think at a certain age, its an initiation...What age should you start to see public executions?" Kirk asked.
Kirk, along with his co-hosts Jack Posobiec, Tyler Bowyer and Blake Neff, continued to discuss at what age should children watch the public executions, with one co-host pointing out as young as 12 years old."
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-death-penalty-public-executions-1873073

I agree with many things Charlie Kirk had to say about LGBT people and minorities and do so without any feelings of hatred towards those groups.

What evidence is there that he "hated women, LGBT people and any minority"? You and other lefties make up this shit, because it's you who are consumed with hated that you try to project on people who disagree with you.

Do you people even know who this man is? His entire career is just debating against the rights of minorities and in support of guns. You ask for evidence yet his entire career is evidence.

Quoted scripture about homosexuality as an “abomination” deserving death.
Called Martin Luther King Jr. a “myth” and said the Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake.”
Dismissed Black competence and made demeaning statements about Black women:
He claimed that Michelle Obama and other supporters of affirmative action “lacked the brain processing power” to understand arguments on those policies . He also made undermining comments toward Black pilots, saying, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ’Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” .

I do love it when racists decide to out themselves on here.

Wow.

Don't hold back there OP.

This proves the point of everybody on this thread.

Well yes it would 'capture your thoughts' it's exactly what you have said throughout.

Just nasty, judgemental attacks on someone horrifically murdered. Why share this stuff?

Love the person that you quoted adding a 'y'all' at the end. Very articulate.

Exactly! The man's eulogy writes itself - and most of it is just awful stuff☹️.

I'd never heard of him, and no I don't live under a rock, American right wing commentators are generally not on my radar, the algorithms online don't show them to me. I'm a lifelong and "old fashioned" leftie. In my 70's, Labour party member most of my adult life, voted for Corbyn as leader, left the party due to the Antisemitism (that was a huge learning curve).

So I have done some research over the past two days, trying to find out more about this man. Not surprisingly he espoused a LOT of views I disagree with - but his mission to get people to engage and think critically is much needed.

If you cannot defend your views rationally, and always default to "feelings" then your views are built on sand. Feelings change. He seemed like a genuinely nice conservative bloke who I would happily debate with (would not want my DCs to marry). We might not agree but hopefully we would come away with a better understanding of what the other person actually believed (rather than a caricature of that belief).

This clip of him trying to engage someone in debate just sums up the problem.

https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1966057233482989936
.

<sighs>

You can disagree with his views that does not make him evil.

There’s nothing “uneducated” about saying y’all. It’s a totally normal contraction used across the American South and beyond - by academics, writers, journalists, and everyday people. Mocking it doesn’t make the point look silly, it just shows you don’t understand regional language differences.

Another ironic thing, if you're looking for irony, is that the 'No Debate' approach to some issues from some of the left (and I consider myself left wing, broadly, so I'm criticising my own tribe here) contributes directly to the positive image some have of CK as a nice reasonable person, always willing to debate with courtesy.

If more people on the left were willing to get into courteous debates - to persuade by showing rather than telling, and to get into the details of an issue and examine all sides as a way of persuading people - then people like CK would stand out only for their extreme religious and patriarchal views, not for that willingness to debate politely.

It's such an own goal.

I hear what you’re saying, but I think it’s important to note that Kirk’s “mission” wasn’t just to spark critical thinking or healthy debate. His career was built on spreading harmful disinformation and actively targeting marginalised groups and dedicating his life earnings to organisations that actively work against these minorities. That’s not just “a different viewpoint,” it’s rhetoric that has real-life consequences for people’s safety and rights.
Debate only works when both sides recognise each other’s humanity. Kirk’s brand of politics was about stripping people of theirs. That’s why many of us aren’t mourning him, not out of “feelings,” but out of recognition of the material harm he promoted.

'There’s nothing “uneducated” about saying y’all.'

I didn't say uneducated? I said 'very articulate'. To write a speech about their thoughts on this man and to sign off with 'y'all' seems to minimise the actual content somewhat.

I think it’s worth questioning what “debate” really meant in Kirk’s context. He didn’t go into those exchanges in good faith, trying to uncover truth together. His whole brand was about performing civility while pushing harmful, dehumanising views. That dynamic makes it less of a debate and more of a platform for spreading rhetoric that puts marginalised people at risk.
It’s not an “own goal” for people to refuse to debate their own humanity or rights. That refusal isn’t weakness- it’s setting a boundary. The real irony is that what made Kirk look “reasonable” wasn’t the strength of his arguments, but the fact that so many people assumed politeness equaled good faith.

absolutely. Look at what has happened to women with the no debate over allowing males in spaces and sports.

Doxxed, lost jobs, threatened with rape / violence etc. etc.

That's all OK to the so called 'progressive left'.

If your only argument is to silence your opposition then you really have no argument.

Reagrdless, “y’all” doesn’t minimise the content- it’s just a regional/colloquial way of speaking. Plenty of articulate, educated people use it. Ending with “y’all give me a headache” doesn’t undercut the argument, it just adds emphasis and voice. If anything, it makes the piece more authentic and direct.

Wow that’s sick