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’m explaining why many people won’t mourn someone'

Don't mourn him then. No-one has said you should! Just stop the constant criticism and moaning. He hasn't been dead 24hrs yet fgs.

You haven't actually established how anyone was 'endangered' though.

There’s a big difference between me, an individual on a forum, and someone like Kirk, who had a massive national platform and built a career on amplifying rhetoric that influenced policy and inspired hate. I’ve said clearly I don’t condone murder. But I’m also not going to pretend his words didn’t have serious real-world consequences. Criticism after the fact isn’t the same as dehumanising entire communities while holding a microphone to millions.

You’re right gun culture and opposition to reform long predate him, and he didn’t invent those positions. What made him stand out was how he framed tragedies like school shootings. Instead of treating them with empathy, he mocked calls for reform as “emotional manipulation” and shifted blame onto things like “fatherlessness” or “the left.” So yes, he echoed a wider movement but he also chose to use his platform to downplay the deaths of children and harden resistance to change. That’s why people point to him as part of the problem, not just another voice in the background.

Has anyone asked you to attend his funeral?

To put into UK context (as that’s where I am!), I don’t like Tommy Robinson. I think the guy is an absolute dick. I think his rhetoric around immigration is dangerous, and I think it incites violence between different parts of our community. I’ve made that quite clear to people on this site, for about the last 3 weeks.

I also hope, after yesterday’s events, that he’s increased his security for his march on Saturday. Because as much as I don’t like his views, he’s entitled to them. He’s as entitled to them as I am to the opposite.

If he came to harm because of those views, I absolutely would not take to the internet to talk about how when he was alive I thought he was a dick, and how not sorry I am.

In fact, regardless of my dislike of his views, I’d think it disgusting he was killed for them, and think it awful his children were left without a father. Because that’s humanity.

I have, though ... maybe it just hasn’t landed with you?

• He called gender-affirming care for trans youth “child abuse” and pushed to ban it nationwide. That’s denying access to healthcare repeatedly shown to reduce suicide risk. For those kids, it’s literally life and death.
• He described Muslims as wanting to “import values that destabilise Western civilisation.” That’s the same framing used by terrorists like the Christchurch shooter to justify mass killings. This also prompted islamophobic attacks.
• He echoed the “Great Replacement” conspiracy, calling it “not a theory, it’s a reality.” That exact ideology was cited in the manifestos of the Christchurch, El Paso, and Buffalo mass shooters.

That’s what I mean when I say “endangered.” His words weren’t just opinions , they fed into narratives that have inspired real-world violence and shaped policies that put people’s lives at risk. He was a public figure and his words actually made differences to peoples opinions, thoughts and actions.

I responded to this upthread. None of this is 'endangering' anyone

'But disagreeing with someone’s beliefs isn’t the same as watching them dedicate their career to spreading racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia'

We have discussed this. He was religious and many religions don't agree with trans, LGBT or abortions. We cant demonise every religion you have to accept their views.

He said he didn't think kids should get trans care and many people agree. That isn't phobic.

I agree with you that nobody deserves to be murdered for their views- I’ve said that from the start. But talking about why people won’t mourn isn’t the same as celebrating violence. If Tommy Robinson were killed tomorrow, I’d condemn murder then too because I am a normal law abiding citizen who also believes murder is a major sin. But I also wouldn’t expect Muslims or immigrants he’s spent years demonising to stay silent or feign sorrow. For them, “humanity” can look like refusing to offer empathy to someone who denied them theirs.
That’s the distinction I’m making... condemning the killing doesn’t mean rewriting the legacy.

What you're highlighting here isn't unique to him either, loads of people have said similar things

'He called gender-affirming care for trans youth “child abuse” and pushed to ban it nationwide. That’s denying access to healthcare repeatedly shown to reduce suicide risk. For those kids, it’s literally life and death'

Have you read the thread, many posters have said this had been widely debunked.

We’ll have to disagree there. When a public figure with a massive platform amplifies conspiracies like “Great Replacement” -the exact ideology cited by mass shooters in Christchurch, El Paso, and Buffalo- that’s not harmless opinion, it’s feeding into a worldview that has already cost lives.
You may not see those words as endangering anyone, but the evidence shows otherwise. That’s why people refuse to reduce his legacy to “just different views.”

Plenty of religious people hold their beliefs without building careers out of targeting others. I am also religious. The issue with Kirk wasn’t just that he was personally conservative on LGBT or trans issues, it’s that he used a huge platform to push for policies that stripped people’s rights and to spread rhetoric that painted whole groups as threats.

True he wasn’t the only one saying these things. But that doesn’t make it harmless. When someone with his level of influence repeats and amplifies those arguments, it strengthens them, normalises them, and makes it harder to shift the culture. That’s the point: he didn’t invent the ideas, but he gave them a bigger platform and made them part of mainstream discourse. That’s why people see him as responsible for helping entrench positions that ultimately put more lives at risk.

'I agree with you that nobody deserves to be murdered for their views- I’ve said that from the start'

Your terminology 'evil' is filled with bile and vitriol.

Try to turn this anger round in your head and #BeKind. You clearly hated him and while of course you aren't happy he is dead you still feel the need to stick the boot in. Why?

The difference is, I’d argue with Tommy Robinson all day in life. But I wouldn’t argue with him in death.

I don’t see what the point would be. You didn’t like a man who is now deceased. We can’t bring him back for you to argue with.

The evidence doesn't point to a single person who lost their life as a result of his words.

But he is now dead, at the hands of someone

Theres something very special about declaring somebody "evil" while at the same time complaing that he dehumanised people.

You have dehumanised those who share his beliefs, of which there are many.

Your rhetoric creates the conditions where violence aganst them becomes more acceptable - eg when a trans identifed male goes and murders two children at a catholic school during and injures 16 others a couple of weeks back.
This is the flip side of your coin.

By current definitions many MNetters would probably define me as Far Right. However I believe in universal access to free health care including abortion for women and a robust benefits system. I would certainly describe myself as feminist and have worked as a woman in male dominated industries believing fully in my right to be there. That said I thought Charlie Kirk had much of value to say and I enjoyed watching him debate and debunk.

I cannot begin to imagine jubilating over the brutal public execution of a liberal/left wing political activist in the way so many are both here on MN & elsewhere on social media feel comfortable to do. I would be as horrified as I am about CK and would shed tears for them as I have for him. I genuinely wonder how many of you can be comfortable in your own skin believing you’re a good, decent person who holds the correct beliefs if you believe he deserved this or it was justified in any way because he said some things you didn’t agree with and held the “wrong” beliefs.

Yes it's all a bit pot and kettle for me.

Calling someone’s actions or rhetoric evil isn’t the same as being consumed by anger. It’s naming the impact of what they chose to promote. I don’t hate him personally, and I’ve said clearly I don’t condone his murder.
But honesty about the harm he caused isn’t the opposite of kindness, it’s refusing to erase the damage just because he’s gone. That’s not “sticking the boot in,” it’s context.

You’ve been asked, and you’ve failed, to demonstrate what serious real-world consequences” Charlie Kirk’s words have had.

He caused no harm to anyone - he simply spoke words. Words that you disagree with. Words that, by virtue of your disagreement with them, are “evil”.

You accuse him of dehumanising people, yet you are engaging in the exact same behaviour.

But that’s the thing.. public figures don’t stop being talked about when they die. People still debate Thatcher, Reagan, even Churchill and countless others long after their deaths. That’s what happens when you’ve built a career shaping public discourse: your record gets discussed, for better or worse.
So this isn’t about “arguing with a dead man,” it’s about being honest about the impact of his legacy. His death doesn’t erase it, and people have every right to say why they won’t mourn.

Exactly. I'd be as horrified at Jeremy Corbyn getting murdered so horrifically despite me disagreeing with and laughing at every thing he has ever uttered.

Oh my days. I never said Kirk personally pulled the trigger on anyone. What I’m saying is that his rhetoric amplified ideas- like Great Replacement- that have already been cited by killers to justify their attacks. That’s not hypothetical, it’s documented in manifestos. And yes, now he’s dead at someone else’s hands. I’ve condemned that clearly. But acknowledging the harm of his words doesn’t disappear just because he became a victim of violence himself. Both truths exist at the same time.