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!

MY EXACT QUOTE:

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.

so no i never took back calling him evil. i clarified my reasoning.

Okay. You don’t have empathy for people whose views you don’t agree with, or people you view as harmful.

You’ve said that, nobody here is convincing you to cry yourself to sleep tonight.

Feel better?

I’ve never once said he “deserved to die.” I agree with you nobody deserves to be murdered for their beliefs. But that doesn’t mean I owe him empathy. There’s a difference between condemning murder (which I do) and shedding tears for someone who built his career on dehumanising others. And on the Muslim point - this is where the double standard comes in. If a Muslim preacher had spent years pushing the exact same rhetoric Kirk did I don’t believe for a second people here would be saying “oh, those were just his opinions” or urging us all to empathise. They’d call him extreme, dangerous, harmful. So why is it treated differently when it’s Charlie Kirk?
Empathy is a choice, not an obligation. I’m choosing to reserve mine for the people he harmed, not for him.

Thanks for the condescension, but I don’t need anyone’s permission to feel how I feel. I’m not asking to “feel better” I’m pointing out that refusing to mourn him is a valid stance, even if that makes you uncomfortable.

I don't understand why people are insisting we should have empathy for him. He held and amplified some truly abhorrent views.

Okay… and nobody is trying to tell you otherwise.

Don’t care that he’s dead. But showing that by going on.. and on.. and on.. about his many shortcomings, isn’t a particularly effective way to show your disinterest in his death.

You don’t just not have empathy, you have a real ongoing issue with a man who is no longer here. Seems like a waste of anger to me.

Why should we mourn him? Why should people who never liked him mourn his death? Some people wouldn't even mourn the deaths of relatives they didn't like. I don't think he deserved to be killed but i won't mourn a death of someone whose views I truly despised.

Exactly!!! If my MIL passed away I would not mourn her as I do not like her and we are no contact. Why should we mourn someone we do not like?!

Pointing out someone’s legacy isn’t the same as being “angry” or “obsessed.” I don’t need to prove indifference by staying silent - I’m allowed to call out the harm he caused, even after his death. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s because deep down you know his record doesn’t hold up to the soft-focus version people are trying to paint now.

Evidence of the real harm he caused?

Different opinions do not equate to real harm! I didn’t agree with all of his points, but he eloquently put them across and was prepared to listen and debate which is needed now more than ever. He got people interested in politics which is also good.

What are your thoughts on the RE teacher in Batley who was hounded out of his job by a baying mob and is still in hiding years later? Those people caused real harm.

Or the nurse in Fife who was suspended for not wanting to share a changing room with a trans identifying male? She lost her job and reputation, which could be seen as real harm?

You seem to have a problem with seeing the bigger picture….it is a sad day for our society for anyone to think they can end someone’s life in this manner because they disagreed with their political opinions, especially when they were fairly mainstream in the USA.

And in vehemently attacking (verbally) the person who was assassinated, because you fundamentally disagree with the opinions of those on the right, and trying to justify this a reason he somehow deserved this to happen or brought it on himself is downright dangerous.

'Why should we mourn him?'

And no one has said you have to. The op called him evil and said rather unkindly that 'karma is a bitch' and I'm sure we've all seem the bile and vitriol posted online.

You don't have to have liked his views, you don't have to mourn him. Just no need for all the awful criticism of him. He was a popular guy so obviously did something right.

Nobody here is saying he “deserved” to be killed. I’ve said repeatedly that murder isn’t justified.
And yes, it was harm. He didn’t just “have different opinions” - he poured millions into organisations and campaigns that fought to strip away rights from immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women, and Palestinians. He defended ICE separating families, did not care about those suffering genocide, dismissed school shootings as “the price of freedom,” and told his audience empathy was weakness. That’s not just “eloquently putting across” views -it’s normalising cruelty and giving it a platform.
The Batley teacher and the nurse you mentioned? Both examples of harm. I’m not denying that. But you don’t erase harm done by one figure by pointing to harm done by someone else. The “bigger picture” is that harm can come from all sides and Charlie Kirk contributed plenty of it.

Plenty of people throughout history have been “popular” while doing deeply harmful things- popularity doesn’t equal goodness.
And again, saying “karma is a bitch” isn’t celebrating his murder, it’s pointing out the grim irony of someone who defended gun culture dying by the very thing he dismissed as an “acceptable cost.”
I don’t have to pretend his legacy was harmless just because he had fans.

Would you say 'karma is a bitch' if she was murdered though?! Maybe you would, you don't seem to understand that is a really unpleasant thing to say.

If my MIL was murdered, no, I wouldn’t say “karma is a bitch” because she hasn’t spent her life defending the very thing that killed her. That’s the difference with Kirk. He literally dismissed gun deaths as the “price of freedom,” so pointing out the irony when he died by gun violence isn’t the same as gloating. He thinks his own death is a good thing and is the price of freedom!!! I am agreeing with him!!!
Unpleasant? Maybe. But it’s also true.

'it’s pointing out the grim irony of someone who defended gun culture dying by the very thing he dismissed as an “acceptable cost.”

Loads of Americans defend gun culture, the amendment and all that.

Defending the right to bear arms does not mean it's karma if you get murdered. Obviously.

What? Why should he not be criticised? He said some truly awful things that are worthy of much criticism. Everyone has the right to criticise him if they want to.

True, lots of Americans defend gun culture but Kirk went further. He openly said that gun deaths are an “acceptable cost” of the Second Amendment. That’s why it’s ironic in his case: he minimised the deaths of others caused by guns, and then he himself became part of that same toll.
That’s not the same as saying “anyone who supports gun rights deserves to be murdered.” It’s pointing out the hypocrisy of his own words coming back around.

Some people have really put him on a pedestal despite some of the really despicable views he held and shared. He spoke in the open and can be criticised in the open.

Exactly this. It's not horrible to point out that he was killed by the same thing he defended.

You don't think there's a time and a place and that time to challenge him was when he was alive? You don't think when someone has just been murdered so horrifically and publicly it maybe isn't the time to say 'karma is a bitch' and list all the things he said that were so very bad apparently?

Am I being told to believe that Charles Kirk was a devout Christian? Did nobody ever introduce him to the most basic tenets of the Christian faith? Evidently not if his behaviour demonstrated his knowledge. You're not supposed to make it up as you go along and just pick the bits that favour your prejudices. It's in the Book. Look it up.

For OP and anybody else who still fall for the lies

1. He pushed for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, calling it “child abuse.” For trans kids, that’s not just rhetoric, it’s denying them healthcare linked to lower suicide rates.

Read the Cass Report, then read the following report where the suicide rates were debunked.

Professor Louis Appleby was asked by Health Secretary Wes Streeting to examine the data following claims made by campaigners of a rise in suicide rates since puberty-blocking drugs were restricted at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust in 2020.
Prof Appleby, who is a professor of psychiatry and experienced suicide researcher from the University of Manchester, said online discussions about the issue had gone against guidance on safe reporting of suicide.
"One risk is that young people and their families will be terrified by predictions of suicide as inevitable without puberty blockers - some of the responses on social media show this," he said.

Shock horror, even the BBC reported it. Mutilating children should be a crime and not pushed as life affirming. It's sick.

I disagree. Public figures are discussed both while they’re alive and after they die - that’s how legacy and accountability work. People listed Henry Kissinger’s “bad things” when he died, people do the same with politicians, celebrities, and yes, Charlie Kirk.
Saying “karma is a bitch” wasn’t about celebrating his murder it was about the grim irony of someone who dismissed gun deaths as an “acceptable cost” becoming a victim of gun violence. If that feels uncomfortable, it’s because his own words make it uncomfortable.

I wouldn't personally say Karma is a bitch. But I have no issues with people highlighting the things he said and stood by. What's wrong with it? He was never shy about his views.