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!

It literally happened. You can read all about the FAA hiring scandal online, where competent people who passed a standardized exam (one correlated with job performance) were denied jobs in favor of people given points for complete nonsense biographical information (and purportedly more shady goings-on, if the above wasn’t bad enough).

All because some Dolores Umbridge type in government thought the field was too white and male. As if there’s anything wrong with that?

@Watermelonhighhe is also on the record as saying that black people were better off under slavery (https://x.com/whoopingfeet/status/1965906586138009839?s=46)

He said god’s perfect law says gay people should be stoned to death (https://x.com/danielsogay/status/1965887308454101427?s=46)

After the Uvalde school shooting in which 22 children were killed, he said “some” deaths were a prudent and rational deal (https://x.com/ronxyz00/status/1965872119604289791?s=46)

He spread Russian propaganda about Ukraine and stated that Zelenskyy “doesn’t want peace” (https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1965904842041471006?s=46)

He became violent when someone confronted his views (https://x.com/antitrumpcanada/status/1966148602490925081?s=46)

He had vile views about George Floyd (https://x.com/kaimandante/status/1965903777401295008?s=46)

He defended the genocide in Gaza (https://x.com/partisan_12/status/1965935477028237781?s=46)

he has plenty of vile views.

I want to be clear in that I do not endorse the text of these tweets in any way. I am merely sharing the videos attached to them to illustrate my point.

Someone merely asked him what he would do in that case. He believes abortion kills an innocent life.

I happen to disagree (I think it’s in the public interest to ensure rapists don’t reproduce) but even I can understand this POV. They literally believe it’s their grandchild, a blessing from god.

This is not true.

But you don’t understand why it’s vile and rooted in misogyny?

But you don’t understand why it’s vile and rooted in misogyny?

But you don’t understand why it’s vile and rooted in misogyny?

To be honest, I don't think everyone on this thread is posting in good faith, either. The OP's position is perfectly clear and defensible.

I would never have posted about CK before. I knew he existed, saw some of his more (to me) outrageous comments online and knew him to spread misinformation and amplify conspiracy theories, as well as promote ideas contrary to mine.

But the reason I've been moved to post now, after this obviously unjustifiable murder, is that people seem to be virtually canonizing him as some kind of free speech martyr. We don't even know who killed him and why. He was a man who stoked fear and division by his rhetoric, and monetized it. If we ignore that, we ignore why he is famous. Of course this is precisely the time to talk about what kind of a man he was and what legacy he leaves. That doesn't mean that we can't condemn the murder and feel extreme sympathy for his family, especially his poor children - just as we feel sympathy for the families of the many people killed everyday by violent means who receive much less individual publicity.

I do find it particularly extraordinary to see UK politicians, far more moderate than CK, like Johnson, jump on the bandwagon of free speech martyr speaking common sense.

Do you even watch the clips you post?

He never said they were better off under slavery. Listen again.

Tell his wife and kids that.

What you seem to be saying is that because he stated his views that were different to yours it's better that he is dead? Whilst I didn't agree with all his views, I do agree with some - does this mean I should be waiting for someone to come and do me in and everyone should be okay with it?

He was a young man trying to open the avenues of debate between people. Yes, his views were conservative but I think it's appalling to suggest that the world is a better place without him in it because of this

Literally there is a court case concerning this. What don’t you understand about it?

He did. Do you believe 22 children’s lives lost is a “prudent deal”?

I should be surprised his has defenders here, but also, I should not. Even despite his views on women and careers…I guess owning the Libs trumps everything.

I wonder if him and the other “blacks were better off under slavery crowd / before 1940” would like to try that life for themself.

It’s exactly this.

Before he died he was a dangerous idiot. Now he is someone that cannot be criticised.

Why is it vile and rooted in misogyny, specifically?

I happen to think both POVs are legitimate, but I actually want the rapist’s child to be terminated. I’m not such a nice person as he is.

He did. He specifically stated that “while it was bad and evil” they were better off before 1940 as “they had less crime”:

He is also on record stating the civil’s right act was was a mistake.

Because it all stems from punishing women. For daring to have unprotected sex, or for being too “tempting” and making a man assault them. If it were actually about the life of the child they wouldn’t be so against welfare programmes, or so accepting of school shootings.

Nobody is saying he can't be criticised.

What's shocking is people stating that his murder is justified because of the things he believed.

Is speech only free until someone disagrees with the narrative and then the cost is your life?

I can guess he thinks they were better off in the 1940s (he never says under slavery in the clip and you know it) because black families were intact and fathers were in the home.

I highly, highly disagree with him here. I think in many cases, those fathers should have been kicked out of the home.

The ongoing class action does not claim roles went to unqualified people.

Quote where that has been said on this thread.

I did not say DEI hires are not qualified and Charlie Kirk never said non-white men and women are "inherently unqualified".

That you have to make up this shit demonstrates that you have lost the argument.

If the successful candidate is the objectively the best person for the job, nothing else should matter. If the best person for the job is overlooked in favour someone who ticks the right boxes, who is a weaker (albeit qualified) candidate, that - in many reasonable people's eyes - is ridiculous and for safety-critical posts, potentially dangerous.

That deluded lefties can't see sense in best person for the job is (almost) unbelievable.

He references slavery but in referencing “before 1940” he is arguing life for black Americans was better under Jim Crow.
His statement also demonstrates his racist and misogynist world view: That systemic racism and institutional racism, racial violence and entrenched poverty are all better situations to be if your dad lives in your house.

He’s a moron and I cannot understand how people are lionising him.

It’s a projection from your side. It’s not about punishing women. They literally believe that innocent life is sacred, even the child of a rapist deserves a chance.

If you want to be persuasive, you actually have to accurately describe their beliefs, or you will get NOWHERE.

They believe that innocent life is worth protecting. It’s my job to persuade them that, harsh as it is, insisting all children be born will put everyone in a worse position due to increased crime rates and dysfunctional family structures. A little cruelty now can prevent a lot of cruelty down the line.

No, they don’t. Or they’d be in favour of a proper safety net, proper maternity leave, proper healthcare (including the right to an abortion for medical reasons), in favour of stricter gun control. They care about birth.