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!

Being polite doesn’t make your opinions less hateful though?

I get what you’re saying- rights do need to be defended and re-argued, especially when people try to roll them back. I’m not against debate itself. My point is just that not everyone has to be the one doing that work, especially those directly targeted by the rhetoric.
When someone refuses to debate their own existence, that’s not leaving rights undefended.. it’s protecting themselves. Others who aren’t personally under attack can and should step up to make the arguments. That way rights are still defended, but the burden doesn’t always fall on the people whose humanity is being questioned.

You said 'He is still an evil person'.

Why don't you ask mn to edit your op as you are now admitting that he wasnt an evil person?

He just held very different views to you. We must all learn to be more resilient and tolerant when others express opinions we don't like.

Immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ+ people, especially trans youth, and Black and brown communities. He promoted policies and rhetoric that encouraged discrimination, harassment, and even the stripping away of rights and protections. When you amplify ideas that dehumanise people and portray them as threats, you create conditions where violence and harm against them become more acceptable. That’s not abstract... it has real consequences for people’s safety and lives.

I didn’t say he “just held different views I didn’t like.” His career was built on spreading rhetoric and policies that targeted marginilised groups. That goes well beyond “opinions.” And no, I’m not backtracking. I still believe his actions and rhetoric were evil. You don’t have to agree, but please don’t twist my words into something I didn’t say.

What did he actually say that endangered their lives?

Actual words from him ...

I've been wondering that too. It sounds like more of that lefty catastrophising to me...

www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/1ax9q6d/charlie_kirk_fantasizes_about_children_watching/

Did you start any threads to discuss his awfulness when he was alive?

Why now, is I guess what I’m saying. I’m a little confused why now could possibly be a good time to go over this.

I'm not twisting anything. You said it! It's there in your op 'he is still an evil person'.
That is an appalling thing to say.

You asked for actual words... here are a few :)

1. He pushed for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, calling it “child abuse.” For trans kids, that’s not just rhetoric, it’s denying them healthcare linked to lower suicide rates.
2. On Muslims: HE tweeted that Muslims want to “import values that destabilise Western civilisation.” That’s classic dehumanising “clash of civilisations” rhetoric, painting an entire religion as a threat- this inspires violent hate crimes
3. Re Black professionals: “If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” This wasn’t just a slip, it was part of his crusade against diversity initiatives, which directly affect whether Black people and other minorities get opportunities without being stereotyped as “less competent.”
4. On immigrants and “replacement”: Kirk amplified the Great Replacement theory- posting, “This is not a theory, it’s a reality.” That exact conspiracy has been cited by mass shooters (Christchurch, Buffalo, El Paso) as justification for their killings. So yes, his words and the platforms he built helped to normalise dangerous ideas* *that have fuelled discrimination, policies stripping rights, and even terrorism. He spent his career amplifying rhetoric with deadly real-world consequences.

Because people are angry at people for not caring that he is dead. There is a reason we do not care.

If you don't care, why multiple threads about it?

You do care. You care people are sorry he died. You care people are upset at him being murdered. You care that people don't universally condemn him.

I saw quite a few of his debates. Some were funny (waffles or pancakes), some rang true (what is a woman), some were abhorrent (abortion rights) and some were hilarious (he got completely owned by a woman who excelled in debating).

Overall, I didn't like most of his ideas and I didn't like his style, but I liked his ideas of going out there and debating and encouraging people to really think about what you said. And for that I will remember him.

Bro I said yes, I did say that and I stand by it. I think dedicating your career to spreading racism, transphobia, Islamophobia, and xenophobia is appalling. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is. You don’t have to agree with my choice of words, but calling something evil when it actively dehumanises and endangers people is not appalling.... what’s appalling is pretending it was just “different views.”

It’s not that I “care” in the way you’re framing it... I’m not mourning him, and I’m also not celebrating. I’ve posted because there’s been a lot of pressure to show sympathy for someone whose career was built on targeting others, and I think it’s valid to explain why many of us won’t do that. If you found some of his debates entertaining, that’s your perspective. But for the people his rhetoric dehumanised, those “debates” weren’t just intellectual sparring, they were attacks on their right to exist safely. That’s why indifference, not mourning, feels like the honest response.

1. He pushed for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, calling it “child abuse.” For trans kids, that’s not just rhetoric, it’s denying them healthcare linked to lower suicide rates.

Are you in the UK OP? I'd suggest you take a look at this. Particularly the Cass review and the fact that the suicide claims have been debunked.

Many rational, non evil, people agree with this view.

Absolutely none of that is endangering lives. I think you have a real issue with exaggeration here.

Point 1) He's right, the suicide threat has been utterly debunked and there are huge issues with medical practices that have not been properly tested on childrem who cannot give consent to them.

Point 2) Again, not threatening anyone's life. I think an issue that deserves more scrutiny actually, though would need to be done sensitively. It's only a very short quote, so no idea if it was handled sensitively,

Point 3) A very unpleasant remark and discriminatory, but again not even close to life threatening

Point 4) I dont really follow this one, sorry, can you give more context?

Bro?

He wasn't evil. The person who shot him was evil. Hope that helps.

Try to be more accepting and tolerant.

Many people disagree with trans care for kids with dysmorphia, not just this one person and he certainly is not the only person to have concerns about immigration.

He was able to debate politely and respectfully something some on the hate filled left <not you, just generally> could learn from.

I do agree with that, but the problem in recent years isn't that the people most closely involved with an issue haven't (understandably) been doing all the front-line debating, it's that nobody on the left has been doing the debating. This has had two effects: firstly we look unreasonable because we are not debating, we're shutting down debate with accusations of bigotry; secondly we're not stress testing ideas well enough, which means that things end up being proposed and campaigned for that have major flaws. One example is rapists in women's prisons - that should never have been an issue because the self ID policies being proposed should have identified that as a problem and excluded that scenario from the start.

Sometimes the end result of a lot of debate is that some policies just end up going nowhere because they are identified as unworkable at an early stage, but that's much better than it happening at a late stage, when there is much more of a risk that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater and good bits of a policy will be lost along with the bad.

Public debate also means that the people who go along with a proposal are more likely to be doing so because they actually believe in it, rather than because it seems superficially a good idea and people they trust have said it's a good idea. That sort of support looks good on paper, but it's fragile.

Would you publically (or even privately) argue that your 10 year-old daughter should have to give birth in the event she became pregnant from rape?

Would you see her giving birth as 'something good coming out of something bad?'

'Because people are angry at people for not caring that he is dead. There is a reason we do not care.'

I don't care that you don't care.

I care that you've labelled a man so brutally murdered as evil and have dedicated a thread to sharing out of context allegations.

If you don't like someone who has been murdered it is customary <in the UK anyway> to just zip it. There is no need to constantly rehash what he may or may not have said.

Don't you think the shooter is the evil person here?

Have you noticed that people who say “they don’t care” are being very vocal about it.

There are lots of things I don’t give two shits about, so I keep my mouth shut, I have no opinions on them.

Who is?

People are angry at people choosing the immediate aftermath of a man’s death as the opportune time to discuss whether they liked him or not.

People were angry at those on the thread last night that said “Good” when it was confirmed he was dead.

If you hadn’t started a thread, elaborating on just how much you don’t care, nobody would be here telling you that it’s insensitive and poor timing.

You can not grieve without making it a public event.

It actually reads more like you’re trying to convince others not to have compassion too.

'People are angry at people choosing the immediate aftermath of a man’s death as the opportune time to discuss whether they liked him or not.People were angry at those on the thread last night that said “Good” when it was confirmed he was dead.'

Exactly. It is the bile, vitriol and glee at his death that is just repulsive.

He was probably asked about it, due to a rather infamous case in Ohio.

Background is, mom’s illegal alien pedo boyfriend rapes a 10-year-old (actually she was 9 when it was happening) and she went to quietly get her daughter an abortion to protect her POS boyfriend. She didn’t bother to report him, defended him to media ….

They are way, way worse than Kirk, who is just a little naive and believes babies are a blessing from god and that they could raise such a child to be a credit to society.

Of course, I think it’s so naive, for many reasons