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 sounds like quite the shock. That must have been really difficult for you.

If the past couple of days have taught me anything, it’s just how much of a struggle it is for some people to accept that and allow for others to hold different opinions to them.

I hope you’re managing to adjust and are feeling better today.

What on earth.

This isn’t you vs Charlie Kirk. He’s literally dead.

'Saying “karma is a bitch” isn’t the same as cackling or celebrating'

It is exactly the same.

As a pp has said just leave it, stop digging.

I know he’s dead. I’m not treating this like some “me vs. him” rivalry. What I’m pointing out is that I don’t feel the need to mourn someone who used his platform to attack marginalised groups, and that it’s inconsistent for MN to allow personal attacks on posters but delete criticism of a public figure. It’s about how we talk about legacy and accountability, not some personal feud.

Gloriia you need to find another thread to cling onto. It’s not the same. “Karma is a bitch” was me pointing out the irony of someone who spent years defending guns and downplaying gun deaths then becoming a victim of gun violence himself. That’s not celebrating, it’s recognising hypocrisy.
I’ve been clear from the start that I don’t think murder is justified and I’m not glad it happened. I just don’t feel the need to mourn him there’s a difference. I have said this a million times.

No, what you said is “why is it okay for people to attack (?!) me but not okay for people to criticise Charlie Kirk.”

Firstly, not sure you’ve been attacked.

Second, you’re alive and he isn’t.

You’re also not currently a potentially controversial international talking point, you’re a woman on the internet.

They’re very obvious differences. Particularly the he’s dead and you’re not part.

'Oh shut up' 'Are you illiterate'

Oh dear op. Seriously, try and debate politely. This is all so very toxic isn't it.

You can disgaree with his views without constant bile and vitriol.

I've actually been watching more clips and he seemed like a nice guy tbh.

Queer Gazans generally seek asylum in Israel. Oh the irony.

I get it, it must be difficult to accept that Mumsnet and others found your posts about a young father who had just been murdered, odious and harmful enough that they chose to delete them from their site.

Rather than starting an entire thread complaining about it, perhaps have a look in the mirror. Hard, I know. Especially when one considers themselves to be such an upstanding human.

'What I’m pointing out is that I don’t feel the need to mourn someone '

Yes yes and that is fine and we all agree. Don't mourn just don't call him evil. Also, it's your tone hun that needs a little work. Telling people to shut up, telling me I'm talking shit, asking someone if they're illiterate.

Try and be like Kirk and debate without attacking, you could follow his good example.

Nobody has said you need to be sad about his death yet you keep justifying in great length all the reasons you aren’t sad.

Calling a man who has just been murdered infront of his family evil for having different views and beliefs to you and gleefully saying karma/highlighting the irony that he was shot is beyond disgusting and completely unnecessary.

get that there’s a difference between me and a public figure. But personal insults aimed at posters are still against MN’s own rules, and those were left up. Meanwhile, posts criticising a man with a long public record were deleted. That’s the inconsistency I was pointing out.
And yes, he’s dead but the impact of his work isn’t. His platform and organisations will continue shaping politics long after him, which is why people are discussing his legacy now.

I have Muslim family who are from Palestine and Jordan. That’s a really reductive way to look at it. Many queer Palestinians and allies exist within Gaza and the West Bank, and they’re part of those communities whether outsiders acknowledge them or not. The “irony” framing erases the fact that both Israeli and Palestinian LGBTQ+ people are caught in systems of oppression and violence. Their existence doesn’t cancel out the suffering of ordinary Palestinians under bombardment.

I don’t think it’s “hard to look in the mirror” at all. I’m very clear on my values: I care deeply about Palestinians, immigrants, women, LGBTQ+ people- the very groups Charlie Kirk spent his career undermining. That’s why I don’t feel the need to mourn him. Criticising a public figure’s harmful legacy isn’t the same as celebrating his murder. And pointing out inconsistent moderation isn’t some moral failing it’s holding MN to its own standards.

I’m not calling him “evil” just for having different beliefs. I’m calling him that because he built a career and a multimillion-dollar organisation dedicated to undermining human beings who are marginalised. That goes far beyond “different views.” And “karma” wasn’t me gleefully celebrating it was pointing out the bitter irony of someone who dismissed gun deaths as an “acceptable cost” then dying by the very thing he defended. I’ve been clear I don’t think murder is justified. I just don’t feel the need to mourn him, and I’m allowed to say that. I do not care about him. Just like I would not care if Trump died, or if Netanyahu died (although in Netanyahu's case I WOULD gleefully celebrate).

You don’t have to extoll your virtues to me. I get it. You’re a good guy, Charlie Kirk is a bad guy. You are more entitled to life than he is. His death is so amusingly ironic. Well done you!

This thread isn’t about your censorship, or that’s what you’d have been talking about for the last few days.

It’s about Charlie Kirk and how much you believe he was wrong and should have been censored.

You’re not fighting your own corner, you’re attacking his. Just call it what it is, please.

Nice try, but I’ve never said I’m “more entitled to life” than anyone. What I’ve said - consistently - is that I don’t mourn a man who built his career demeaning others and defending the very violence that killed him. If you find it easier to twist that into some cartoon version of me “extolling my virtues,” that says more about your argument running out of steam than it does about me.

Oh please. Charlie Kirk had one of the loudest megaphones in U.S. politics-
the last thing he ever was is “censored.” Criticising him now isn’t me “attacking his corner,” it’s just refusing to do the crocodile-tears routine you seem so invested in.

I WILL PASTE THIS AGAIN-

Empathy for every situation is not empathetic in the same way that a friend to all is a friend to none. For example, if someone were to come up to me and say, I'm okay with sacrificing your child's life, because those are my beliefs. And I turned around and said, I empathize with you. That is not empathy at all. That is the absence of empathy. It lacks empathy for myself, for my child, for my entire system of beliefs. At that point, it ceases to be empathy, and it starts to be a lack of morality. Do you understand that? Like, we're not talking about some run-of-the-mill guy who was kind of conservative, voted Republican. We're talking about a guy who made a career out of going on a campaign to say how little other people's lives matter. He's literally said out loud, Black lives don't matter. He said he would force his 10-year-old daughter to give birth regardless of what it did to her. He said women's roles should predominantly only be to be homemakers. His rhetoric and his influence were so powerful that he fueled hate crimes against trans women who had done nothing wrong. He supported people being kidnapped off of the streets and sent to literal concentration camps. I don't think that having a removed response about his passing is lacking empathy. I think it is a presence of empathy. I am an empathetic person, which is why I don't have empathy for this situation. Because a friend to all is a friend to none, and empathy for every situation is just a lack of morality.

The alternative view of course is that Charlie Kirk devoted his life to trying to highlight and spread his version of Christian values. These aren’t my values but he certainly wasn’t alone in holding antediluvian views.

At least he was willing to debate them with anyone in an open, courteous manner. It’s an outrage that he alongside so many others have been murdered for expressing opinions.

AS a Conservative christian he probably believed that homosexual acts were wrong - that's a mainstream Christian teaching - which I personally disagree with.

That does not mean he wished harm on anyone who was gay. I have not seen any evidence of him calling for violence against anyone for what they believe. Like most conservatives he believed in the use of armed defence, so supported the right of Israel to respond to Oct 7th. You may disagree with him. But none of the positions I have seen him espouse are far Right, no one has posted anything HE said that demonstrates that - just claims that he said "x" - always taken out of context to try and frame him as far right.

Argue against the portions he actually took - not the straw man positions people claim he took.

“Courteous” doesn’t erase the fact that his “version of Christian values” translated into campaigns that harmed MARGINALISED COMMUNITIES. If he was a Muslim speaker or an imam, people would not be defending him on this thread and saying 'he was just sharing his views'. Being polite while pushing cruelty doesn’t make it noble. And let’s not pretend he was killed just for his opinions.. he lived in a country awash with the very gun culture he spent years defending as worth the “acceptable cost.” That irony is uncomfortable, but it’s real.