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!

Why do you lack critical thinking?

Because him saying that some deaths is an acceptable cost against the perceived benefit (in his view) of right to bear arms is not the same as him advocating death by shooting of anyone. It is inevitable that there will be some deaths in the same way, we don’t ban cars or motorways or knives but we accept there will always be deaths caused by those.

I disagree with the USA gun laws, but to be honest, if a psycho wants to commit a murder, they will find a way to do it with illegal guns or something else.

The same people who go to great lengths to talk about free speech, now want it curtailed because they don't like some of the things they are hearing. Kirk stood by some of the awful things he said. He didn't retract or apologise, so neither should those discussing it now.

When your "opinion" is that a demographic of people are less deserving of rights and need to submit to those superior to them, that's not civil debate no matter how much some people choose to interpret him as voicing these opinions "eloquently". There's nothing eloquent or civil about parroting the same racial or sexist rhetoric that has dehumanised groups of people for generations which is why those "opinions" don't just cause offense they cause actual harm. It's also not a sign of a democratic, civil, or eloquent person who is open to different views in a democracy to help organise an insurrection against the democratic process of a country.

“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.”

These views are shared by millions of people in the USA and similarly in the uk. Different people have different views and priorities for funding and policies.

In your view they are harmful, someone else may call the necessary.

In a democracy people can choose their side at the ballot box, after considering all opinions. Plenty of people seem to agree with his opinions as seen in the polls , similar to the uk at the moment.

Nobody said Kirk was advocating for people to be shot - the point is that he downplayed and minimised those deaths, calling them an “acceptable cost.” That’s why it’s grimly ironic when he himself ends up part of that “cost.”
Cars and knives aren’t designed for killing, guns are. And in the U.S., the sheer scale of gun violence isn’t comparable. Saying “people will find a way” doesn’t erase the fact that the policies he championed make it far easier for psychos to succeed in doing maximum harm.

Democracy means people can hold and vote for different views, it doesn’t mean those views are beyond criticism. Yes, millions share his opinions, but popularity doesn’t magically make harmful policies less harmful. ICE tearing families apart or mocking genocide victims doesn’t stop being cruel just because it polls well.
Calling out the damage isn’t being “intolerant of democracy,” it’s using mine- the right to criticise and refuse to mourn someone who built his career on normalising cruelty.

Yep, we should be celebrating him wanting to protect kids from 'trans care'.

The thing is - people say all sorts of things.

Many people the world over say things they don’t actually mean or follow through on just to: be popular, be left alone, get attention, purposely wind someone up or without thinking. Rage baiting is apparently a thing.

And we see it here all the time - people having opinions and saying they’d do x,y,z with their children in certain situations but they don’t have children. Chances are when they actually do have children, they’ll see it’s not as simple as “telling them no”/“not feeding them McDonalds/whatever they say now.

I think lots of people have opinions on abortion but when it comes to actually having to face the decision in you or your loved ones, they rethink the situation.

So, no - I don’t consider someone saying those things is evil. Evil comes from actions.

It is a dangerous precedent to set when someone is assassinated because they say things others don’t like. Because, in reality, everyone will say something or have an opinion that someone else will disagree with.

Remember that Martin Luther King was assassinated because some people thought he was evil and dangerous.

'Nobody said Kirk was advocating for people to be shot - the point is that he downplayed and minimised those deaths, calling them an “acceptable cost.” That’s why it’s grimly ironic when he himself ends up part of that “cost.”

Again, it is not 'ironic' it is tragic.

Are you in the US, do you know any Americans? Many support gun ownership and Kirk recognising that some deaths are a consequence of respecting the public's wish to bear arms is not minimising deaths it is stating fact.

I think what he actually said was that he did not prefer empathy. He preferred compassion and sympathy.

All of us need to think critically and stop basing our opinions on media (whether that be social or dodgy news outlets) - they manipulate the facts and purposefully report in a way to polarise people.

I’m not even a fan of the guy or his policies but I feel like I need to defend him by providing more information.

This isn’t just about “things he said to get attention.” Kirk didn’t just blurt out shocking opinions for rage-bait... he built entire organisations, raised millions, lobbied politicians, and mobilised young people to turn those opinions into policy. That’s action, not just talk.
And please don’t compare him to Martin Luther King. MLK fought for equality and civil rights; Kirk fought against them. One campaigned to expand dignity, the other to strip it away. Putting them in the same frame is offensive.
Nobody here is saying he “deserved” to be assassinated. I’ve said repeatedly murder isn’t justified. But let’s not downplay his record as if it was just random offhand comments. It was a career of weaponising cruelty.

You didn’t even know who he was until he died. I’ve known who he was for nearly a decade, and every single time there was a school shooting or a church shooting, he went out of his way to minimise it. He literally said “more children are killed by household accidents than guns” as if that makes kids being shot in their classrooms any less horrific. So no my point isn’t that “lots of Americans support gun rights.” My point is that he dismissed the deaths of children over and over again. That’s why I don’t give a shit about mourning his death now.

You realise that your comments imply at least an undertone that he deserved it, right?

And all the Islam protests? Even in London - where they are allowed to protest and worship but UK citizens are getting arrested for “hate crimes” because they are protesting against the Islam protests?

You either need to allow religious freedom - which includes protecting that religion from others and allowing them to publicly protest or advertise - for ALL religions or none.

Bringing Muslims into everything every time is such a deflection. This thread is about Charlie Kirk, not “Islam protests” in London.
And yes, religious freedom applies to everyone- but that includes Muslims and people who criticise harmful rhetoric. Protecting religious freedom doesn’t mean you get to dismiss hate speech as “just beliefs,” whether it’s from a Christian, a Muslim, or anyone else.
The difference here is that Kirk wasn’t simply exercising his religion in peace, he built huge, well-funded organisations to funnel money and power into stripping away rights from immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women, and Palestinians. That’s why we’re talking about him, not because he “just expressed his faith.”

I don’t really care if you think it “implies” that. I’ve been clear: I don’t think anyone deserves to be murdered. But I also don’t feel any obligation to mourn him, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise.

Yeah we know. You really don’t have to mourn him.

But why do you feel quite so much obligation to go over areas of his past you disagree with?

“Because people do” isn’t an answer, btw.

Why are you personally so invested in telling everyone how terrible he was?

You maybe don’t give a shit about his death. But you very evidently give a shit about Charlie Kirk.

Yes and 'karma is a bitch' You've made yourself very clear.

Fortunately people with similar views are getting widely slated online so it is reassuring to know that most people see this as what it is, a tragic horrific murder of someone in the US who promoted free speech and could debate politely and respectfully.

Because people here keep minimising what he did and painting him as some harmless family man who just “had different views.” If others are invested in defending or sanitising his legacy, I’m just as entitled to point out the harm he caused.
I’m not “obligated”, I’m choosing not to let the narrative be one-sided.

That’s funny, because everything I’m seeing online is the opposite of what you’re claiming- my feeds are full of people pointing out the irony and saying they’re not sad he’s gone. Hardly anyone is “mourning” him outside of his own fanbase.
You can call it a tragic murder if you like, but don’t pretend he was some saintly free-speech martyr. He built his career on cruelty, and people are reacting accordingly.

He was a family man, who also had polarising views. He can be both.

You’re making the narrative one sided.

'everything I’m seeing online is the opposite of what you’re claiming- my feeds are full of people pointing out the irony and saying they’re not sad he’s gone'

I mean why even say they're not sad he's gone?! Why the need to stick the boot in. It doesn't surprise me that these are the people you follow. Bile and vitriol is so toxic.

@anonymouselephantx

Is there anyone else who has not recently been assassinated that you feel equally strongly about, regarding their political views and actions?

He can be both, sure- but being a “family man” doesn’t erase the fact that he used his platform and millions in funding to harm other people’s families. That’s the part I’m highlighting because others here keep glossing over it. Trump, Netanyahu, Al-Assad are all 'family men'.
Pointing out the damage he caused isn’t making things one-sided... it’s balancing out the sugarcoating.

That is the problem with algorithms and cookies these days, there is no balance and it encourages polarisation of society.