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!

They’re not even people I follow... it’s what’s coming up on my feeds. Tweets, TikToks, posts… all of it is people saying they’re not sad he’s dead. And it makes sense: normal people who actually have empathy for minorities aren’t going to shed tears for a fascist who spent his career undermining them.
People say they’re not sad because they don’t want to pretend to mourn someone who spent his career demeaning them. That’s not “bile,” that’s honesty.
What’s actually toxic is expecting empathy for a man who openly dismissed empathy as weakness, while denying it to the communities he targeted.

When he was alive, I did talk about him- I’ve known who he was for years. Whether he’s dead or alive doesn’t change the fact that he spent his whole career pushing harmful rhetoric and campaigns. Death doesn’t wipe a slate clean.

What's being a family man got to do with it though? Lots of awful people are family men, no one has to mourn every one of them that dies.

It's reasonable to feel empathy for his children without having to mourn the man himself.

Is there anyone else who you think is in the same category?

Nobody’s asking anyone to mourn.

What I question is why, despite it being okay to not be sad, you’d not just keep your not sadness to yourself.

I genuinely cannot understand why anyone would take to the internet to declare how unbothered they are.

“Look how much I don’t care!”

Nobody’s saying you have to care, but it’s weird to revel in your lack of interest.

Because freedom of speech, which people praise him for advocating, or debate which he so loved? If you find it bile or vitriolic for people to simply say they're not sad that a man they didn't know personally is dead as only know he did and said harmful things, I'm surprised you weren't equally horrified by the bile he used to talk.

Maybe some of them found him telling them they were better off enslaved or need to submit to a man, found that to be him sticking the boot in them on a regular basis.

Yes it reminds me of Harry and Meghan moving away from the uk for privacy and then continually courting publicity!

I mean you accused OP of insinuating he deserved it because she's not choosing to explain why she isn't mourning someone. Telling people they must either post with your narrative or shut up, isn't really in the spirit of this man's memory. If people want to mourn and praise him for debating and free speech, they shouldn't be stifling people simply expressing their pretty neutral opinion of not mourning a man they didn't know personally and why.

Also all the "why do people feel the need to say what they think" is very ironic when discussing a man who loudly asserted his beliefs in an unnecessarily nasty manner often. Leaving aside his racist comments and his assisting antidemocratic rioters, who goes unprompted onto an engagement post of a woman to tell her to submit to her husband? If you genuinely feel that people should not say anything if they don't have anything nice to say, you really wouldn't have liked the man either.

JKR summarises it nicely I think. As an aside - I've just listened to the press conference with the FBI and the governor of Utah about the arrest of the shooter. I thought the governor was very impressive.

Yep, and just like I spend my time questioning Tommy Robinson on why he thinks his language and words are appropriate, here I am asking OP the same thing.

I’m actually not mourning him, because I don’t make habit of mourning people I don’t know - I’m not that sentimental. And at no point have I defended his views either.

What I have been doing is asking why OP has the level of response she has, to a thing she allegedly doesn’t care about, and why she deems it appropriate to use the aftermath of a man’s death to relay that response… repeatedly.

They’re questions that are allowed to be asked - freedom of speech, remember?

Of course there are others, but this thread is about Charlie Kirk. I don’t need to start listing names to justify why I won’t mourn someone whose entire career was built on harming others.

It’s not “look how much I don’t care.” It’s pushing back against the tidal wave of people sanitising his legacy and acting shocked that not everyone is mourning him. If others can post tributes, I can post the opposite. Silence isn’t the only valid response... honesty is too.

The more I read about him the less convinced I am about the "Far Right racist" narrative being pushed by people.

And she listed all the very real world political actions he has either started or been a part of and the real world arms that's had on many demographics of people, so you switched to "why do you feel the need to list what he's done" , it all circles back round to stifling people's very reasonable speech on this man.

You're not mourning the man, you don't want other to mourn you're just here to question why OP cares so much - why do you care so much why she cares? It's a discussion site, people post their opinions and debate topics, there's your answer.

Freedom of speech goes both ways. You can question why I’m posting, and I can explain why I won’t mourn someone who used his platform to harm others. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s exactly what free debate looks like. And let’s be real: if people are free to post endless praise and sympathy, then others are just as free to post the opposite. You don’t get to call it “inappropriate” just because you don’t like it.

Please don’t come to Ireland - we don’t want people like you.

So is it in some ways to push back against those who are mourning him?

As I said, I’m not one of them, but could posting to the opposite to tributes be a response to those tributes, to try and make them less valid because he was a bad man.

You’re not grieving him or posting in tribute - but are other people allowed to?

I get to call it whatever I please, actually.

Because freedom of speech does go both ways.

I don’t think many of us are mourning him, I mean we didn’t actually know him.

If we are mourning anything, it is the loss of free speech and erosion of civilised society

You keep minimising what you said. Freedom of speech is fine, say you didn't like him and won't mourn, no one cares that you won't 'mourn' him.

You have been unpleasant though, the he is 'evil' comments the 'Karma is a bitch' comment. Telling people to shut up, asking if posters are illiterate.

You don't seem to understand basic social etiquette.

I haven't personally seen people telling other posters they can't mourn him. I've seen people fact checking people's erroneous claims in their mourning statements or tributes to him, which given a lot of posters claim not to have known much about him, makes a lot of sense no? If you feel someone's tribute to a man is invalidated because it's untrue, that's not really the fault of them posters pointing out the untruths.

Exactly. I'm not mourning him, I'm not sad. I was shocked as everyone was by such a public murder and have been appalled at the online comments.

He seemed like a nice guy from what I've seen on all the clips being shared even if you dont share his values, very respectful of those with opposing views, able to debate politely and with conviction.

The whooping and celebrating by a minority has been sickening.

Again just because you're not raising your voice at her while you're saying it, you are not civilly or politely debating a person of colour telling them to their face they were better off subjugated under white supremacy.

I'm anti whooping and cheers but I'm just as anti whatever the hell this is of praising people for espousing their racist or sexist views that they're platformed for and giving them credit because they were..well spoken? I'm not even sure what it is you're actually praising as polite in the way he debated unless you're focusing solely on how he spoke and disregard what he was saying. A polite misogynist is an oxymoron, as is a nice racist etc

I am Irish LMAO.