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!

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

If he was suggesting that a pilot might not be competent to fly a plane due to the colour of his or her skin, that would indeed be unpleasant and discriminatory.

However, that is not what I believe he meant. As I recall he was talking about the practice of diversity hiring where a person who is not the most competent applicant is appointed to a position in order to fulfil diversity quotas, rather than the person most suitable for the job.

Many people would agree that appointing the most suitable person for the job without consideration for any factors unrelated to their ability to do the job (such as skin colour) makes perfect sense.

Thanks for this.
I miss lefties of old. I never agreed with you but a healthy debate was always enjoyable. Didn’t agree with Corbyn but I respect him a damn sight more than the puppet running the show now.
What happened? When did the left become so intolerant and so bloody angry? We can see from this thread Kirk’s words/views have been twisted. That’s what the new left do; twist words when they’re not winning a debate, then lie, then cancel, then…RIP Charlie

He did say that " some deaths was an acceptable price to pay" to maintain the secon ammendment (carrying weapons) . I understand he was ok with those "some deaths" to include his own.
He also explained that he hated "empathy", that it was a woke word that had done so much damage. So, to all of you showing empathy, he would hate that, the best homage you can make is to show none.
So the only empathy I will show is to his parents, losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to anyone.

It’s not exaggeration, words don’t have to be a direct death threat to endanger lives.

Major studies (The Trevor Project, American Academy of Pediatrics, The Lancet) have found that access to gender-affirming care reduces suicide risk in trans youth. Calling it “child abuse” and pushing to ban it nationwide isn’t a neutral “opinion”, it contributes to policies that cut off life-saving care. That directly endangers lives.

This isn’t just “scrutiny.” It’s classic dehumanising rhetoric- portraying Muslims as a civilisational threat. That framing has been used by terrorists (Christchurch shooter explicitly cited it) to justify mass killings. Words like that feed a climate where violence against Muslims feels “justified.”

Yes, discriminatory, but also part of a campaign against diversity initiatives that open up opportunities for Black and brown professionals. When someone with his platform normalises the idea that Black people are less competent, it reinforces systemic barriers and feeds the conditions where racist violence can escalate.

The last one is the most dangerous. The “replacement” conspiracy has directly inspired mass shootings:

• Christchurch (51 killed)
• El Paso (23 killed)
• Buffalo (10 killed)

Kirk publicly amplified that conspiracy, calling it “not a theory, it’s a reality.” That’s not just rhetoric- it’s echoing the same ideology cited in terrorist manifestos. So no, it’s not “exaggeration.” It’s understanding that when someone with a massive platform normalises conspiracies and rhetoric that dehumanise whole groups of people, it fuels discrimination, policy attacks, and, in some cases, mass violence.

Context is so important. What British readers may be missing is the recent FAA scandal which discriminated against white ATC applicants and got rid of standardized tests to diversify their workforce.

In fact, aviation is targeted because it is seen as too white and male. In this context, talking about dropping of standards is very understandable, as well as DEI hiring in general.

Of course the shooter is evil- murder is evil, full stop. I’ve never argued otherwise.
But calling out Kirk’s actions and rhetoric as evil doesn’t excuse or diminish the fact that his murder was wrong. Both can be true. His death doesn’t erase the harm he caused during his lifetime, and people are allowed to talk about that without it being “disrespectful.”
Silence may be the custom for you, but others process differently- especially those who were directly impacted by his words and politics.

That is something that makes no sense to anyone EXCEPT the people who see a pregnancy as having a sort of magical essence equivalent to the magical essence they see the girl as having. To THEM that view makes sense.

It makes no sense to ME because I see a bundle of cells not a magical essence. If I was advocating for a ten year old girl continuing with a pregnancy then I could surely only be being cruel for the sake of being cruel.

I think America, like many countries, contains a mixture of people who sincerely believe in this magical essence and believe they're doing a good thing by, as they would see it, protecting it from abortion, and people who don't particularly believe in that but who see restricting abortion as a convenient way to control women.

Exactly this

'Silence may be the custom for you'

Tolerance is the custom for me. Tolerance and kindness when someone has been murdered. Try it.

I don’t think we all need to be informed that you’re lacking in empathy for a dead man.

All this talk of encouraging violence from words completely ignores the fact that by coming here and rehashing every word the man ever said, and how evil he was, could be inciting violence to the right.. using words.

You’re right, words do have an impact, and freedom of speech means that they can lead to that impact. Maybe consider where yours might lead.

Tolerance and kindness shouldn’t mean rewriting history or ignoring harm. I can condemn his murder and still be honest about the damage he caused. For many of us, “kindness” doesn’t extend to sanitising the legacy of someone who built a career dehumanising others. It's called boundaries and honesty, try it!

I think there’s an important distinction here. Criticising someone’s record and explaining why many won’t mourn him is not the same as calling for violence. I’ve been clear I don’t condone his murder.
Yes, words have impact... that’s exactly why I take issue with the rhetoric Kirk spent his career spreading. Words that dehumanise entire groups create the conditions where violence against them becomes more acceptable. Pointing that out isn’t “lacking empathy,” it’s recognising the real-world consequences of his platform.

@BloodandGlitter do you honestly think he’d have been happy to see children murdered? Really?

You really need to think about what you are posting on here…..and back it up with evidence.

This thread, stokes the existing division between left and right, and a time when it doesn’t require stoking.

In highlighting the many wrongs you’ve managed to mention, and then elaborate on, and then bullet point - it could be see that you’re banging the “right are wrong” drum. Well that drum has just potentially lead to a man’s death.

So maybe now isn’t the best time to push that particular button.

I can certainly see how dropping standards for pilots might endanger lives, but I doubt that is the type of danger to life that OP and others in her left-wing world are concerned about.

'So, to all of you showing empathy, he would hate that, the best homage you can make is to show none'

You see I don't act how someone tells me to. So because he didn't do empathy doesn't mean i don't. Try thinking for yourself.

Ditto with his beliefs on other issues, he can voice them I can agree or disagree. That's how free countries work.

It doesn't make him 'evil'.

FGS, he was a young father murdered for expressing his views. Utterly irrelevant what you or anyone else thought of those views.

You sound deranged OP.

He openly defended gun rights even in the immediate aftermath of school shootings, and mocked calls for reform as “emotional manipulation.” In 2018, after Parkland, he said the real problem was “fatherlessness” and “the cultural rot of the left,” not guns. He consistently downplayed their deaths if acknowledging them meant tighter gun laws. That’s why people say he cared more about “owning the libs” and protecting guns than about kids’ lives.

It’s interesting that you say “It’s classic dehumanising rhetoric” but you fail to recognise that you too are engaging in dehumanising rhetoric to the point you are completely indifferent to a young father being murdered simply because he held opinions you disagreed with.

'Tolerance and kindness shouldn’t mean rewriting history or ignoring harm'

Which no one has done.

You can like or hate his views, as can I. It doesn't make him evil.

Criticism isn’t the same thing as stoking violence. I’m not “banging a drum” about left vs right, I’m explaining why many people won’t mourn someone who spent his career targeting marginalised groups. That’s not celebration, it’s context. If words can create climates where violence becomes acceptable, then ignoring the harm in Kirk’s words doesn’t make us safer.. it just sanitises his legacy. Condemning his murder and acknowledging the damage he did are not mutually exclusive.

Added to which, most of it is bullshit or distorted to suit the rhetoric.

Of course you’re free to show empathy if that’s how you feel, just as others are free not to. That’s what “thinking for yourself” actually means.
But disagreeing with someone’s beliefs isn’t the same as watching them dedicate their career to spreading racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. When someone’s words and actions consistently dehumanise whole groups of people, I think “evil” is a fair description. You don’t have to agree, but dismissing that as if it’s just a casual policy disagreement misses the scale of the harm.

I don’t think it’s “deranged” to point out the harm in someone’s record. I’ve been clear that I don’t condone his murder, that was wrong, full stop. But his death doesn’t erase the fact that his career was built on spreading rhetoric that endangered marginalised groups. It may feel irrelevant to you, but for people directly affected by that rhetoric, it isn’t.

To be fair, gun rights have been problematic in the US for decades now and vast swathes of the population agree with his view that they shouldn't be curtailed, even in the light of multiple tragedies.

I can't fathom it myself, but as a political position it's very strongly established, over a long time and widely held across the country. It's very far from being specific to him.