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!

I doubt you KNEW HIM either.

Many people hadn't heard of him. What I've since learnt about him is he seemed a nice guy with religious views <as many have> and had some divisive opinions which he shared without toxicity unlike some of the online haters.

He didn't 'spew hate'. You just didn't agree with him and that is fine. Deep breaths now.

Part of a polite debate is responding to your opponents argument. Something you've done absolutely zero times.

I never claimed to know him personally... I said I’ve followed his career for years. I’m in my 20s, and in my generation most people do know who he is. My husband and I have literally watched his debates for years.
So when I say he wasn’t just a “nice guy with religious views,” I’m not pulling that out of thin air. I’ve seen the pattern myself and it was a lot more than polite disagreement.

I never claimed to know him personally... I said I’ve followed his career for years. I’m in my 20s, and in my generation most people do know who he is. My husband and I have literally watched his debates for years.
So when I say he wasn’t just a “nice guy with religious views,” I’m not pulling that out of thin air. I’ve seen the pattern myself and it was a lot more than polite disagreement.

OP is commenting solely on his public brand and persona, the part of him he shared widely and wanted to be known far and wide and is absolutely correct in what she knew of him. Why can't you accept you disagree? It's one thing to be engaging in a debate because you have a point to make but all your posts are just immature moaning at this point with not a single substantial point and you're not responding to anyone's points either. Your faux decorum about speaking of dead people is rather shattered by your own really gross comments about people recently dying or being murdered so it's all a bit transparent that you just want to do exactly what OP is complaining about - censoring people talking about the realities or his political antics and the harmful hateful things he used to say and wish on others. As it's an online forum and no one is shouting abuse, it's all absolutely fine isn't it? If you can swallow someone spouting racism and sexism as long as they spoke softly I'm not sure why you're so worked up about people speaking about this man.

'I'm not sure why you're so worked up about people speaking about this man'

I know its awful isn't it. The op should just accept that many people liked him and many people didn't. The ones who didn't like him do not need to keep spouting their intolerance of his religious beliefs.

What you're really saying is @Gloriia

Many people hadn't heard of him. What I've since learnt about him is he seemed a nice guy with religious views against LGBT people and women <as many have> and had some divisive opinions about the humanity of black people, women and LGBT people which he shared without toxicity while bussing people in to storm the capital unlike some of the online haters who fundamentally disagree with his positions because they think everyone is entitled to their husband rights even if they're not a straight white man.

He didn't 'spew hate' he spread conspiracy theories, racism, sexism and sowed political division in a country descending into chaos You just didn't agree with him about people submitting to straight white men and that is fine. Deep breaths now.

But they're as entitled to spout as much as his supporters are. Something which in all your comments you haven't managed to find a reason why you keep insisting they shouldn't.

Depending what you consider strong morals.

Forcing a child/woman to have a baby when she has been raped is not having strong morals for me. It is abhorrent. Saying that about your daughter...I have no words, you really have to be a bad person.

I have already said in this thread that I am religious myself. And I am not even that “left leaning” so it’s nothing about that.

What I'm saying is <sorry to repeat op, but this poster is struggling> he was religious and had views you or I may not agree with but many religions don't support trans and LGBT and we tolerate their beliefs.

He had different views to you but had a massive fanbase so he obviously struck a chord with many disenfranchised Americans. Are you in the US?

Try to be a bit more tolerant of other people's beliefs and opinions.

Anyway they've got the shooter so that is good news.

Yeah, he really was.

This is the most ironic comment I’ve seen yet 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 telling someone to be more tolerant of peoples beliefs….. do I need to spell it out for you???? Charlie Kirk is rolling in his grave

Which part did you like and respect the most? His shitty debating skills (I have seen so many videos of teenagers absolutely wiping the floor with him), his racism, his homophobia or his ironic profiteering from gun deaths? Asking for a friend.

@GetOffMyLan He was none of the things you accuse him of.

He encouraged free and honest debate. I tend to find those who hated him fall roughly into two camps - those who haven't really seen enough to understand the context of some of his statements, and those who find it difficult to engage with unpalatable truths. I didn't agree with him on all points, far from it. But I respected his dedication to free speech.

Well that’s the point isn’t it, he’s not even yet in one.

If I’m understanding this right, you’re a 20 something Irish woman deeply invested in the death of an American man and his views when they were alive?

Real skin in the game there.

I had no idea who this man was until recently.

Aside from anything else.

Saying that you believe your 10 year old daughter to deliver a baby after she is raped is very very evil.

I have a 10 year old and told hold the view that it’s better for a 10 year old to deliver a baby than have a simple medical procedure to end a pregnancy is abhorrent. All because of his sky fairy.

You don’t need to be American to care about the influence someone like Charlie Kirk had. His rhetoric and organisations weren’t confined to the US- his talking points circulated globally online, shaping debates about immigrants, LGBTQ+ rights, Palestine, and more. My generation grew up with his content all over social media.

So yes, I’m in my 20s and Irish, and I still know who he is. Pretending his reach stopped at the US border is just naïve.

Religious doesn't equate to thinking black people shouldn't have civil rights. I agree many religions are intolerant to women and LGBT people, and I don't support any of them infiltrating our democratic rights with their made up ideas. Something Charlie was doing on scale. For about the 100th time as you're having difficulties with this denying someone's humanity or rights that you enjoy and feel entitled to is not a valid opinion and I can't believe I even have to say this in 2025. Believing black people should not have rights is not a benign "opinion" it is violent hate speech.

Now I'm still waiting for you to tell me what differentiates a nice misogynist and a nasty one? Or a nice racist or a nasty one? And as you keep stating you don't agree with Kirk, why don't you tell which of his positions you're against ?

Its abhorrent, but then he believed his 10 year old daughter should also submit to a man because she's inferior to them so as horrifying as it was I wasn't surprised when I heard him say he would put his daughter through a pregnancy and childbirth at 10 if she were raped.

Yeah I mean I don’t condone gun violence/murder but clearly he did condone the gun laws in America.

I don’t think we should shy away from calling out an evil man just because he was murdered.

The ripples of his rhetoric and political actions don't just affect the US either. The lobbying against abortion rights in the UK is massively funded by US fundamentalist Christian groups and it's no surprise to now she Farage picking up on the anti-abortion rhetoric that was successful in the US over the last few years as abortion rights were decimated.

Presumably everyone that only wants to eulogize and sanitize him aren't being told it's not relevant to them if they're not American.

Exactly, most of the loudest vocal critics of him in death are those who support gun control something that would actually prevent this happening again. We don't believe people's lives are expendable in the pursuit of everyone being armed, like Kirk did.

That’s just a roundabout way of telling me I should mourn him, or at least pretend to

No it’s really not and that’s not what anyone has said here, you are coming across quite tone deaf if you genuinely don't understand people’s issue with this thread and your responses.

You have essentially started a thread to slag off a human being who has just been murdered in front of their family. Calling him evil, saying things like ‘karmas a bitch’ and even reveling in the irony in the way in which he was murdered.

That is disturbing and vile - this is why people have taken issue. Not because you haven’t pretended to be sad, mourn him or even like him so don’t make up your own narrative to excuse it.

Turning point (Charlies organisation) literally kept an online database of professors who used their free speech to say anything left wing or progressive, so they could be targeted as "anti American". That's not a free speech advocate or defender and absolutely opened all those people up to risk and violence. How on earth is that a dedication to free speech please?