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!

That counts as action in my book. It’s ridiculous to think someone has clean hands if they only incite a nasty thing.

'Gaza is not “all of Islam.” There are queers and allies in those communities who deserve support and empathy just like anyone else'

Gaza is predominantly islamic. 'Queers' and allies will not get any support in those communities .

Genuinely - Charlie Kirk, certainly in death, was an individual.

He wasn’t a political leader, he didn’t have an official role in authority, and as much as he was a Christian he also wasn’t a pastor etc.

I think firstly, they find it easier to question a man who’s already dead. There weren’t any threads condemning him when he was alive. Easy to discredit someone who can’t respond.

Secondly, questioning one man’s views is easier than debating with a whole culture or religion.

Both of those things make it a very easy battle.

He shared his view. That is not an 'action'. You of course don't have to agree with him.

He actually promoted free speech and respecting each other's values.

What is wrong with that?

@GasperyJacquesRoberts the most recent survey has 63% of the US population identifying as “Christian” and of course the Declaration of Independence makes repeated reference to God. Whilst the US has a separation of church and state in practice it remains a Christian country.

That’s just not true. LGBTQ+ Palestinians and Muslims do exist- they’re part of those communities whether people want to acknowledge it or not. Pretending they “don’t get any support” erases the activists, allies, and ordinary people in Gaza and across the region who do stand with them, even in dangerous circumstances. Reducing Gaza to “predominantly Islamic = no queers or allies” is exactly the kind of sweeping generalisation I’m pushing back against. People aren’t monoliths - not in Gaza, not anywhere. I have Muslim family members so I am talking from personal knowledge.

The difference is that Charlie Kirk wasn’t just “someone with personal beliefs.” He built a whole career and multimillion-dollar organisation dedicated to pushing those beliefs into politics, policy, and culture actively campaigning against LGBT rights, abortion rights, immigrants, and more. That’s why people talk about him specifically. Charlie Kirk chose to platform and amplify the most regressive takes, and he used real money and power to do it. It’s not “rabid hatred,” it’s holding a public figure accountable for the harm he actively caused. That’s very different from stereotyping whole religions.

'It’s not “rabid hatred,” it’s holding a public figure accountable for the harm he actively caused'

It is rabid hatred. The stuff I've seen online people cackling, celebrating. It is sick as fuck.

Thankfully many are being held to account. Yes we can not like someone but to spread such bile and vitriol is not ok and many I think are regretting their outbursts and are deleting their offensive crap.

KIrk was a family man, he was religious as are many. His views didn't align with yours and that is fine, that is life. Try to work on your resilience and tolerance.

I agree with you OP, i am not condoning violence and feel sorry for his family. But that can't take away from the fact that he held terrible and chilling views, espoused extreme racism and bigotry and caused people who disagreed with him to be harassed and threatened by those he influenced. And then there is the appaling discrepancy between the reaction to his shooting and that two months ago of the democratic senator, her husband and dog.

You have been saying the same shit since yesterday, forcing me to repeat myself over and over again.

I haven’t cackled or celebrated his death, and I don’t think murder is ever “ok.” What I’ve said is that I don’t feel the need to mourn someone who spent his career undermining the rights and dignity of others. That’s not “rabid hatred,” that’s honesty about the harm he caused.

Yes, he had a family and was religious. Lots of people do. Having a family is part of the human existence. But having a family doesn’t erase the fact that he used his platform and money to push policies and rhetoric that damaged the lives of immigrants, Palestinians, LGBTQ+ people, and others.

Tolerance doesn’t mean staying silent about harm, and resilience doesn’t mean pretending someone’s legacy was harmless.

This.

I was deeply disturbed yesterday to read MNers saying that they or their family followed Kirk and felt that he made some valid points.

Never heard of the bloke. I’m sure there are many like him that hold the same views and shock- walk among us every day.

OP slightly hypocritical when you’ve asked MN, no begged them to remove posts you didn’t like.

I doubt he’s thinking anything anymore, he’s just a nobody. Didn’t deserve to die, he hasn’t murdered anybody.

You really dont need to be so rude. You don't 'have to repeat yourself' you are choosing to.

He was clearly a popular man in the US, you didn't like him or his values and that is fine.

You may not have cackled and celebrated, I said many people online had and it's disgusting to see.

Try to be kind and have some tolerance for others people's values and beliefs.

There remains a difference between "my religion says I can't do x, therefore I won't do x" and "my religion says I can't do x, therefore you can't do x".

And while there are many Christians in the US by no means all of them believe that the First Amendment should therefore be discarded.

ie you are deeply disturbed by different opinions

Lots of people must have agreed with him, or he wouldn’t have had the following he did.

I’m not one of them, to be clear, but he evidently had a following.

Op: "I haven’t cackled or celebrated his death, "
Op: "karma is a bitch"

MN can delete any comments they want. This is an internet forum and 'free speech' doesn't apply.

I’m not being rude, I’m being clear. Disagreeing strongly isn’t the same as being unkind. You actually were rude at some points yesterday.

Yes, he was popular in some circles in the US but popularity doesn’t make someone beyond criticism. The “values” you want me to tolerate weren’t just abstract beliefs, they translated into real harm.

I’m not mocking or celebrating his death. I’m simply refusing to pretend that his legacy was harmless. That’s not intolerance, it’s honesty.

Saying “karma is a bitch” isn’t the same as cackling or celebrating. I wasn’t cheering his death I was pointing out the grim irony of someone who spent years defending guns and downplaying gun deaths then becoming a victim of gun violence himself. HE himself said gun deaths are inevitable and are an acceptable consequence in his mind, so he believes his death is an acceptabe consequence. That’s what I mean by karma: the consequences of what you put out into the world coming back around. It doesn’t mean I think murder is justified or that I’m glad it happened.

It's not censorship to monitor your own site to your own satisfaction and standards. Mumsnet are not the government suppressing free speech. You will just have to satisfy your desperate desire to express your deeply disgusting pleasure regarding the slaughter of a man in front of his children elsewhere.

Try Twitter.

Imagine starting a thread because you weren't allowed to be disgusting about a murdered young man on someone else's website. Unhinged.

I haven’t expressed “pleasure” at his death, that’s a misrepresentation of what I’ve said. I haven’t celebrated or cheered, I’ve said I don’t feel the need to mourn someone who spent his career causing real harm to marginalised groups. There’s a difference.

Pointing out hypocrisy in how MN moderates posts isn’t “unhinged,” it’s noticing that personal attacks on me were left up, but criticism of a public figure was removed. That inconsistency is worth questioning. I am allowed to call that out. It is free speech as you all say.

Just stop digging. Ask to have this thread deleted. It's despicable.

You. Weren't. Censored. They're not the government. They just put you back in your box.

Which is mental. You can’t go though life with everyone agreeing with you