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!

Oh come on. He wasn’t just quietly holding “mainstream Christian teachings.” He spent years actively organising, funding, and platforming campaigns that fought against minorities. That is wishing harm, just dressed up as policy instead of outright violence. And as for “not far right”- when your politics consistently line up with stripping away rights from marginalised groups and cheerleading military violence, the label fits whether he shouted slurs or wrapped it up in polite debate.

The amount of support for an ally of a paedophile President on this forum has absolutely boggled my mind.

I don't support any kind of violence and it's awful this has happened.

People who support gun ownership clearly don't mind that innocent people, including children are killed by gun violence daily. I get it's free speech but someone that can dismiss school shootings as something society must put up with, and thinks empathy is a new age made up term, probably isn't an all round good guy like some people are trying to portray here.

If they can not be sad about dead kids and no one bats an eye, I can be not sad about their death. I won't be made to feel guilty either.

Exactly. I don’t support violence either, but I also won’t be guilt-tripped into mourning a man who openly dismissed school shootings as “the price of freedom” and mocked the very idea of empathy. If he could look at dead children and feel nothing, I’m not going to pretend to be sad about his death.

I just don’t feel the need to mourn him, and I’m allowed to say that

You keep on repeating this like some sort of parrot that’s lost the plot.

Literally no one has said you need to mourn him or you should feel sad so why do you keep saying this?

@anonymouselephantx Imam’s share views of this nature every single day. Of course they’re not reported because it’s not actually news. A devout Christian visiting left wing college campuses and publically espousing deeply held Christian beliefs is news because it’s so unusual.

No, that’s not what I meant. The difference isn’t about what counts as “newsworthy.” My point is that if a Muslim imam went around building multimillion-dollar orgs, mobilising students, lobbying politicians, and pouring money into campaigns to strip rights from minorities, people here wouldn’t be hand-waving it away as “just sharing his beliefs.” They’d call it what it is: harmful extremism.
Kirk wasn’t unusual because he was a “devout Christian.” He was unusual because he turned cruelty into a career, wrapped it up in politeness, and pushed it into the political mainstream.

OP is perfect example of hard left - anyone who has a different opinion to them is evil. I don’t agree with many things Charlie said, but he didn’t deserve to be killed and he certainly wasn’t evil.

Didn't even have to look into the archives to find his vitriol, Guardian did the hard work for me. Thanks!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

And don’t forget that it is wrong to generalise about any group of people, unless it’s those you deem to be far right and then it’s ok..

I’m not “hard left” — you'd be surprised to hear some of my opinions. This isn’t about left vs right, it’s about recognising that Charlie Kirk used his platform and money to attack minorities. That goes beyond “a different opinion.” You can believe he didn’t deserve to be killed (I agree) while also being honest that what he did caused real harm. Both things can be true.

When did I generalise an entire group? There’s a big difference between generalising about whole groups of people and holding an individual public figure accountable for what he actually did. I’m not saying “all conservatives are evil”... I’m saying Charlie Kirk built his career and brand around undermining minorities. That’s not a vague belief system, that’s a track record. Tolerance doesn’t mean giving someone a free pass when their “beliefs” cause real harm.

@anonymouselephantx but you must be aware of the various well funded Muslim lobby groups not to mention countries and various other entities that act to advance Muslim interests?

Of course I’m aware that there are lobby groups connected to lots of religions and identities. The existence of Muslim organisations doesn’t change the fact that Charlie Kirk personally built and led Turning Point into a multimillion-dollar machine that actively undermined marginalised communities. This thread is about him, not vague “what about Muslims?” deflections.

@anonymouselephantx I just don’t understand why people are quite so exercised about Charlie Kirk expressing his deeply held Christian convictions when there are plenty of other representatives of a wide range of faiths doing precisely the same.

If it’s simply the case that the objection is that Kirk was more successful, then that makes no sense.

'I’m not calling him “evil” just for having different beliefs'

You said 'He is still an evil person'.

Make your mind up.

Do try to be a bit kinder.

The reason I brought up Muslim speakers is because the double standard is obvious. If a Muslim speaker had died after spending their career spreading the exact same kind of rhetoric Kirk did nobody here would be rushing to say “oh, those were just his opinions” or urging us all to empathise. They’d be calling it out for what it was. So why is it different when it’s Charlie Kirk? Harmful ideas don’t suddenly become less harmful just because they come wrapped in American conservative “Christian values.”

READ MY ENTIRE QUOTE. There’s no contradiction!! I called him evil because of the harm he actively caused through his platform, not simply because he held “different beliefs.” Those aren’t the same thing.
Kindness doesn’t mean sugarcoating someone’s legacy or pretending their actions didn’t hurt people.

Gloriia, I think you need a hobby. I’ve started ignoring half your replies because they’re repetitive and tedious, yet you keep circling back. At this point you’re just arguing for the sake of it.

'just don’t understand why people are quite so exercised about Charlie Kirk expressing his deeply held Christian convictions when there are plenty of other representatives of a wide range of faiths doing precisely the same'

Exactly.

I think the fact he was a Trump supporter and wore a MAGA cap is what really rattled some intolerant people more but they have to pretend it was his anti abortion belief that was the problem. Despite people of many different faiths having the very same beliefs.

You just said you didn't say he was evil so I quoted you saying he was evil

Attack me all you like but try not to contradict yourself so much.

I remain unsure why you’d spend two days arguing with a dead man.

You must have really really not liked the guy to still be this “not bothered” two days later.

What do you want from this thread? Recognition that Charlie Kirk said some bad things? Or would you like other people convinced that his death is unimportant and doesn’t require any basic human empathy?

For the millionth time, no, it wasn’t just “a MAGA hat” or “deeply held Christian convictions.” Plenty of Christians and people of faith are anti-abortion without turning it into a multimillion-dollar political machine that also targeted humans.
Charlie Kirk didn’t just hold beliefs he weaponised them. That’s why people are “exercised.”

Oh my god. Reread my reply. Quote my entire sentence not just a piece of it. I never said he was “evil” just for having different beliefs — I said he was evil because of the way he weaponised those beliefs to cause real harm. That’s not a contradiction, it’s context. If you can’t (or won’t) see the difference, that’s on you.

I’m not “arguing with a dead man.” I’m responding to people here who keep minimising the harm he caused and acting like it’s shocking that not everyone is mourning him. What I want from this thread is simple: to be clear that not feeling empathy for someone who built a career dehumanising others is valid. I don’t need recognition or agreement, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to feel how I feel- but I won’t be shamed for refusing to join the crocodile tears.

That is absolutely not true.

If a Muslim was murdered, after expressing similar views to Charlie Kirk, I would say that Muslim person did not deserve to die for their belief system, and that it’s disgusting to think otherwise.

I wouldn’t come here and go “yeah but they don’t believe in abortion so 🤷🏻‍♀️.”

Empathy works all ways. All of them.