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!

This is what I don’t get.

Why do you have to you aren’t sad? Why not leave it? There have been plenty of public figures who’s deaths I didn’t give a shit about, I didn’t feel the need to have to tell anyone.

I have been so cheered by the writings of many on the left who profoundly disagreed with everything Charlie Kirk believed in and stood for and yet in the wake of his appalling murder have been able to praise him for the way in which he conducted himself.

Visiting campuses and encouraging open and honest debate, never raising his voice and always listening. The people who have continued to defend his right to express views which they may find abhorrent are people who I think are worthy of being listened to.

I guess you didn't see the ones where he lost the debates. I don't think minds were changed, but both sides were open to hear what the other side said and he, very reluctantly, had to concede.

Most of his videos though showed how the people who came with questions, basically had arguments you could drive a horse and cart through... then he was know to make jokes to get laughs.

He was open to debate, he was open to being asked questions, he often answered from the bible but he didn't force anyone to do anything.

I knew of him is because I follow Riley Gaines. Hence me having seen a few debates filmed on campus because they often toured together. Riley already once had to hide in a classroom from a baying mob. This behaviour is not heading in the right direction

Don't forget the Irish nuns.

100% this.

The hypocrisy of the voters on here who say it wasn't a debate because he didn't change his view is simply astonishing as well.

It appears that we may have just seen one of your "marginalised communities" in action.
Again.

Yeah 'babe', it's a discussion forum. We know. A discussion topic and starting a thread doesn't entail hate speech, ranting or personal grievance about mumsnet moderation. The quarrel is with mumsnet, and 'Site Stuff' section exists for raising such things.

Pot kettle?

@IGaveSoManySigns @anonymouselephantx

But I’m also not going to pretend his words didn’t have serious real-world consequences.

I have done a MN search from the beginning of time until 09/09/25. There are a total of 41 posts mentioning Charlie Kirk, some from years ago and some on the Trump threads. The best time to call people out and explain why their opinions and actions are damaging and have real world consequences is while they are alive and spreading such views, not the day after they are murdered.

If you are finding fault with someone for not having empathy, surely you are saying empathy is a desirable thing and therefore you want to have it and exemplify it, as you clearly aspire to be, if not regard yourself as, better than the person you denigrate for not having it.

To be quite honest I couldn’t care less about him. I feel sorry for his wife and kids but given his statements about school shooting victims, I find it hard to have empathy for him. He’s said he views the victims of school shootings as something that happens, but has to happen. Why should I waste time feeling empathy for him?

In what way? Nobody has presented any evidence that he didn’t hold the deeply disturbing views?

indeed - I have an old school friend who left the UK to pursue a career in Surgery in the USA. White working class, lefty, thought he would have more opportunities there.

He married an American, loved life there, became a citizen, rose through the Hospital ranks and became a chief of surgery. His hospital decided that in the interests of DEI it would fire all senior people and open up the interview process, encouraging a diversity of candidates. Yep, lost his job to a black woman who was much less qualified, less experienced, less peer reviewed publications, but she ticked the diversity boxes. Now obviously that's his version of events, there might have been other factors that he is not revealing - but he and his wife were so pissed off with that - and with the whole "gender affirming care for children" issue, that they voted for Trump.

I'm guessing that enough stories like that are circulating that there are a significant number of people who genuinely believe that safety critical posts might not be held by the most qualified people. I've read enough about the Air Traffic Controller hiring scandal to be very pleased I'm not flying through US airspace again.....

DEI practices does NOT mean unqualified people are hired. But to Kirk non-white men and all women are inherently unqualified.

It’s mad people think trying to increase diversity in an industry means necessarily engaging unqualified people.

*But to Kirk non-white men and all women are inherently unqualified.
*

Where has he said that?

Exactly,rabid right wing nut always on about bingo cards etc.

It’s inherent in his constant insinuations that every qualified woman / non-white male is unqualified (Ketanji Jackson Brown, Michelle Obama who, in his view “lack the brain power to have their roles without stealing from a white person”.)

He blamed his own unsuccessful application on the role being given to an “unqualified woman”
with zero evidence of that.

So he didn't say it

If shortlisting means everybody on the shortlist is unqualified then I guess my choice to only want a female gynaecologist makes every female gynaecologist I consider unqualified.

😂

Ok. 👍

He married an American, loved life there, became a citizen, rose through the Hospital ranks and became a chief of surgery. His hospital decided that in the interests of DEI it would fire all senior people and open up the interview process, encouraging a diversity of candidates. Yep, lost his job to a black woman who was much less qualified, less experienced, less peer reviewed publications, but she ticked the diversity boxes. Now obviously that's his version of events, there might have been other factors that he is not revealing - but he and his wife were so pissed off with that - and with the whole "gender affirming care for children" issue, that they voted for Trump.

I am positive your friend made this up.

I actually disagree with you. Some people ARE better off dead. Now, I know very little about this man so I can’t say either way, although from the little I’ve read, I wouldn’t mourn his loss at all.

But dying doesn’t make a bad person good, or add value to their life.

In the same way as bad people turn old and decreped. I wouldn’t want to be a carer for a horrid old person either.

It sounds like he was a nasty man with dangerous views that made vulnerable people’s lives harder. So, whether he had a family or not, is totally irrelevant.

You have missed the point entirely.

I think reading comprehension and seeing the bigger picture is at an all time low, and this thread is proof of that.

I think we are waiting for actual evidence of disturbing views, quoted evidence not just your own opinions on headlines about him.

So you think him saying that if his daughter was raped and became pregnant, he’d force her to carry the baby to term, isn’t disturbing?