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!

There’s a difference between calling out a public figure’s record as “evil” and dehumanising entire groups of people. I’m not saying everyone who shares his beliefs deserves harm, I’m saying the way he chose to use his platform had real-world consequences that endangered marginalised communities. Criticism of a person in power isn’t the same as targeting whole demographics. That’s the distinction. And nothing I’ve said excuses violence, I’ve been clear that I condemn murder, just as I condemn any other act of violence, regardless of who commits it.

I’ve been clear I condemn murder. What I have said is that many of us won’t mourn him, because his career was built on rhetoric and activism that actively harmed marginalised groups. That’s not about celebrating his death, it’s about refusing to rewrite his legacy as if he was just “a bloke with different views.” People are entitled to process that differently, especially those he targeted. Condemning violence and refusing to extend sympathy aren’t contradictions.

Okay, but now you’ve said.. what next?

Because you have said you won’t mourn, and nobody will drag you kicking and screaming to his funeral.

Is the rest of this just plain character assassination? Or just an education for the rest of us about how ‘evil’ he is.

We’ve established you don’t need to grieve, the education is unnecessary.

Words don’t exist in a vacuum. When someone with Kirk’s platform repeats conspiracies and frames groups as threats, it shapes public opinion and policy. That’s why I say there are real-world consequences.
I’m not dehumanising anyone by pointing this out. The difference is I’m criticising the choices of a public figure with enormous reach, not entire communities of people.

No one is angry that you don’t care he is dead. It is you getting angry at perceived censorship and views which counteract your own as you feel you have the moral upper hand.

We wouldn’t even know you or your nasty views if you hadn’t started a thread specifically to say that it wasn’t fair that people were having their posts deleted when trying to say they were glad he was dead because they thought he was evil.

To quote Boris “it is a sign of the utter desperation and cowardice of those who could not defeat him in argument. Charlie Kirk has been killed not for espousing extremist views - because he didn’t. He has been killed for saying things that used to be simple common sense. He has been killed because he had the courage to stand up publicly for reasonable opinions held by millions and millions of ordinary people both in the US and Britain.”

Even if you disagree with everything he stood for, that does not mean he was evil, unless there are millions and millions of others the same!

Corbyn and Kirk aren’t remotely comparable. Corbyn’s politics centre on expanding rights and protections, you might disagree with him, but he hasn’t built a career on targeting or dehumanising whole groups of people.
Kirk did. His platform was rooted in pushing racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia into the mainstream. So no, disagreeing with Corbyn isn’t the same as refusing to mourn someone like Kirk. The comparison just doesn’t hold.

Lol. This is a discussion board babe. People post their views, others agree or disagree, and that’s the point. I’m not trying to “educate” anyone or force them to see things my way, I’m explaining why many of us won’t mourn him. If you think that’s character assassination, fine, but that’s what happens when a public figure dies. Their record gets talked about. That’s literally what Mumsnet is for.

He wasn’t murdered because of reasoned debate- he was a polarising public figure, and tragically, someone chose violence. I’ve been clear I condemn that.
But disagreeing with him isn’t about “moral upper hand.” It’s about acknowledging that he used his platform to push conspiracies and rhetoric that dehumanised entire groups of people. That’s why I call it evil.
And yes millions may share those views. That doesn’t make them harmless, and it certainly doesn’t make them right. Popularity has never been the measure of morality.

Well yes, but you have said that you won’t mourn, and everyone here can read.

"Evil" is rhetoric, and in this instance paints an inaccurate picture.

Saville/Brady/Bundy/human traffickers et al were/are "evil" under the definition of profoundly wicked.

Kirk voiced and was prepared to be challenged on opinions that you do not agree with.

I’m angry at people who push for the needless mutilation of children’s bodies, abortion up until birth, the obliteration of women’s rights to female only spaces, apologists for child rape gangs etc etc.

But if one of the many people who are proponents of these imo dangerous and damaging views was murdered in cold blood I wouldn’t be immediately coming on here and ranting about what a terrible person they were.

I don’t particularly think you can say it’s reasoned debate. He refused to even consider changing his viewpoint and he would just repeat the same talking points.

@IGaveSoManySigns sounds very familiar

And what’s that supposed to mean

It doesn't matter if they are comparable belief wise .

My point is we can find those in the public eye ridiculous <corbyn> or unpleasant <Kirk, in your view> but when they are murdered it is not the time to stick the boot in and dissect their comments with an unsaid 'they had it coming' between the lines.

Is that the same Jeremy Corbyn who was unceremoniously booted out of the Labour Party for being an antisemite? The same Jeremy Corbyn who has never met a terrorist he couldn't like?

You are so blinded by your belief that you and people like you are the chosen ones, the most holy and virtuous that you can only see people who agree with you as good and those who do not as evil.

In your world the radical left-wing Jeremy Corbyn's flaws are overlooked, because he is good. Charlie Kirk is right wing, so you ignore the fact that in order to "prove" he is "evil", you have to make shit up, distort and twist his words to pretend he has said things he never said, or present his pretty mainstream views that many people agree with and assert that these views are extreme and a threat to people's lives.

You have had a lot to say on this thread (a lot of it repeated many times) and pretty much all of it is shit.

But the point is, why should people extend more empathy and understand to him than he had for other people

This.

Do read this op and try to adjust your thinking a tad.

There was actually a lot of truth in some of the things he said that you quite agressively disagree with.

Gender affirming care aka sterilisation and mutilation of children: even the research done by the same doctors who push this care, showed the results did not lead to improvements in mental health whilst negatively impacting the physical health of children. So he has a point.

With regard to diversity actions, as someone upthread said, this led to people being hired or admitted who would otherwise not have qualified so lowers the overall quality level. He has a point.

About certain islamic values and group behaviour that certain factions of Muslim want to push into society, he has a point there as well. We need to discuss the societal values that come from large groups of people of a certain religion that maybe new to the country and that do not come from democracies. I agree there as well. He was also fine in that certain Christian religious values also could be debated.

I really do not like the disposition that wanting to debate and holding strong opposite opinion equals removing rights or inciting to violence. Otherwise every strong left and right politician would qualify as well.

@anonymouselephantx
Suicide risk in gender dysphoria
"The evidence on suicide risk in children and young people with gender dysphoria is generally poor. Most studies are methodologically weak, being based on online surveys and self-selected samples and coming from biased sources."

Because we are individuals and think for ourselves?

I prefer to save my sympathy for people who had it for others.

But he didn’t want to debate. He wanted to loudly state his own facts and never move from his established viewpoint.

Well fine. It was been said repeatedly mourning and sympathy is not required but the op's rabid critique of someone dead less than 24hrs is crass and a bit sick tbh.

A man has been murdered. I just think it’s very peculiar behaviour to feel the need to say you’re not sad. Why not just ignore his death?