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!

Yes it's puzzling how they don't see it.

It's all attack attack attack. Constant hate and intolerance.

His entire career was built on hate and intolerance. Don't make me laugh please.

That’s why many of us aren’t mourning him

I don't think anyone's expecting you to mourn him @anonymouselephantx and I didn't see your previous thread, but I think resurrecting it amongst complaints of being "bullied" when your own opinions are so vociferously expressed is poor, especially as he was shot a few hours ago. All that will come from this event is more hate, more violence and more division and that is nothing to be celebrated.

I say this as someone whose opinions and beliefs are diametrically opposed to those Charlie Kirk held.

Well I disagree it diminishes any content.

You must try and accept that we can all have different views and that does make us right, wrong or evil.

Just to be clear, I’m not celebrating his death or calling for more division- I’m pointing out why many people aren’t grieving him. There’s a difference between refusing to mourn someone who spent their career targeting marginalised groups and actively celebrating violence.
I also think it’s important not to tone-police people who are directly impacted by the kind of rhetoric he spread. For them, the lack of mourning isn’t about “bullying” or being “vociferous”.... it’s about survival.

The fact that you're focusing on that word out of the entire paragraph says a lot.

I said essentially this last night on the thread that was ultimately removed. Some of the comments on that thread were absolutely vile.

I am as left as left can be. Bonafide signed member of the liberal leftie clan, and absolutely not ashamed of that.

I’m seeing on this thread, and others, the names of people over the last week I’ve engaged in debate about flags and Tommy Robinson. People I know, or have gathered, I have different views to.

There is absolutely no way that those of us who vehemently disagree with Charlie Kirk’s ethos should be celebrating, condoning or defending his death. No way at all. We cannot debate and argue with the right that we disagree with violence and victimisation of minorities (for example) and then condone this.

A man is dead. A man many people disagreed with. But a man, father, husband and son nonetheless. His views, anyone’s views, do not deserve death. Nobody deserves a public execution for having an opinion, whether you agree with it or not.

Where does that end? If Charlie Kirk can be murdered for his views, can I be murdered for being on the left, for disagreeing with those views?

It’s not about his views, it’s about the idea that someone can be killed for having views at all.

He might have advocated for the deaths and misery of others, but that doesn’t mean everyone else gets free rein to do the same. Be better.

I'm not sure why you're sighing at me, as I have not called him evil.

If you're sighing at me because I have no empathy for a man who thought empathy is a made up concept, then 🤷🏾‍♀️.

His beliefs differed to yours. From what I've seen of him he interacted respectfully, he was happy and able to debate with people politely. We are allowed to have different values and opinions.

Those <not you I hasten to add> online celebrating his death are the evil ones, consumed with hate. I despair with leftie hysteria I really do.

I agree with you that celebrating violence isn’t the answer - nobody “deserves” to be executed for their opinions, however abhorrent. Where I think the tension lies is that many people refusing to mourn him aren’t condoning what happened, they’re just not extending sympathy to someone who spent his life advocating policies and rhetoric that endangered others. It’s possible to condemn the killing and also understand why communities he targeted feel no obligation to grieve him. That’s not hypocrisy- it’s recognition that empathy isn’t owed to those who denied others their humanity.

Personally OP, i don't agree with a word you have said but i certainly wouldn't gloat if someone murdered you just because they didn't agree with the shit you spout. As for evil, i think you need to take a peek in that mirror. Shame on you.

I also think it’s important not to tone-police people who are directly impacted by the kind of rhetoric he spread.

How do you know I'm not? You don't.

You literally admitted you didn't know who he was until he died.

Different “values and opinions” are one thing - building a career on spreading racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and xenophobia is another. That’s not just a difference of perspective, it’s targeting people’s very existence.
I agree that celebrating his death isn’t productive, but dismissing criticism of his record as “leftie hysteria” ignores the very real harm his rhetoric caused. Refusing to mourn him isn’t hate , it’s a recognition of that harm.

Well no. Some are actively celebrating his death. Thats's different.

I’m not gloating over anyone’s death. Pointing out why I (and many others) won’t mourn someone whose life’s work was rooted in hate isn’t the same as celebrating violence. I don’t think murder is ever the answer- but I also don’t think communities harmed by his rhetoric owe him sympathy. You don’t have to agree with me, but please don’t misrepresent my words as “gloating.”

Ok, not me though. So don't involve me in that.

What I meant is that for many people directly targeted by his rhetoric, refusing to mourn is a matter of survival and self-protection, not hostility. My point was that it’s worth holding space for that, even if we personally would respond differently.

Why would you feel the need to go on the internet when someone dies and express how not sorry you are?

That’s callous and unnecessary, however you look at it.

You don’t have to grieve him, but taking to the internet to declare you’re not going to and to dig up his past, however much you disagree with it, is very poor taste.

This.

When I hear 'no debate' when talking about whether someone can change from one sex to the other and that biological men are actual women and there's 'no debate allowed' around that, then I realise that some don't understand facts and basic biology.

An individual actually told a professor of Biology that science had 'moved on' and he didn't know what he was talking about and that men can become women now 😂. It's frankly laughable that facts have disappeared from many individuals reasoning.

I 'literally admitted' that yes but safe to say we've had non stop media coverage of him and his past debates so I do now know what his opinions were.

You don't have to mourn him. Just stop with the 'evil' stuff.

You don’t have to agree with my choice of words, but I’m free to call his actions and rhetoric evil if that’s how I see them. For many of us, what he stood for went far beyond “different opinions”, it actively endangered people’s lives. That’s more than enough to warrant the word.

Do you think that women who want single sex spaces are hateful and intolerant? You mentioned transphobia in one of your posts upthread. I just want to understand the extent of your desire that views that you disagree with should be silenced?

It is an own goal if nobody at all on the left is willing to debate the issues in detail, not just the people closest to each one. It should be a team effort.

If we can't defend rights in a debate then we risk losing them, because as soon as people stop going along with the idea we should have them "just because that's how it's always been" they could decide to vote or campaign against them.

Even if it's boring and repetitive, if we can't remake the arguments from scratch for a particular right when necessary then we're leaving that right undefended.

And CK's debating strategy not necessarily being in good faith is exactly the thing that is obscured when the thing that stands out is him being willing to debate at all. Being willing to debate with courtesy shouldn't get someone any special kudos, because it should be the norm.

I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about me that aren’t accurate. Believe it or not , I believe there are two genders. I also think female-only spaces are important, especially for women from religious backgrounds like Muslim women who can’t remove their hijab in front of people born male.
That said, I also have trans friends- one of my closest friends since secondary school is a trans man. He knows my views, knows I am not the most pro-trans person ever, and we respect each other. I would never tell him, or anyone else, that they don’t have the right to exist or to live as they choose. I have my own opinions, but I also believe in live and let live.
So no, I’m not some caricature “lefty” shutting down debate. But I can still look at Charlie Kirk’s career and see that it was built on targeting and dehumanising others. My criticism of him comes from that recognition, not from a party line.

Whose lives were actively endangered?