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!

.

He very clearly is saying it about those four women.

.

Um racism is never fine.

I said disagreeing with what he said is fine.

When you say “nobody is praising him” are you including Trump? And Boris Johnson?

No if you read my post I was replying to a pp who said 'Exasperating. Why don't you make a thread in praise of Charlie? Then you can all admire one another without having to upset yourselves with strenuous argument so early in the day'. There was no mention of BJ or Trump, the pp was referring to posters on here.

It being there in the first place is not fine .

and there we have it. The difference between us.

Some of us think that we need to engage respectfully with those whose views we disagree with. You do not want those views to be heard at all.

now which of those approaches is right wing and totalitarian?

It’s not “right wing” to think that a raped 10 year old should be forced to give birth. It’s not “right wing” to think that women should submit to their husbands. It’s not “right wing” to think that a black pilot might be unqualified. It’s not “right wng” to say that some gun deaths are acceptable collateral damage for preserving 2nd Amendment rights. It’s not “right wing” to say the Human Rights Act was a huge mistake. To say they are is insulting to right wingers.

your comprehension seems a bit lacking.

it is right wing and totalitarian to wish to prevent views you do not agree with being heard. CK was the opposite of that. Some people on here do not think his views should have been heard. That is totalitarian thinking. Hear the views and rebut them. It's not difficult, but you can't argue against any position that you do not allow to be expressed. We have seen where "no debate" leads. It has no place in a democracy.

The more I actually hear this man speak the more I admire him while disagreeing with most of his views. I've been down the rabbit hole of following up on links posted here "proving" that he was homophobic, racist etc etc. None of them have convinced me.

This meeting where he engaged with an actual homophobe demonstrates who he was very clearly I think. No quotes taken out of context, you get to see the whole interaction.

https://x.com/benleo444/status/1966614434324816332

I know we’re all supposed to joyfully embrace debate and maybe I am morally lacking, but I’m dismayed that the right to an abortion and women’s rights more generally are increasingly on the table for mainstream political debate. I’m dismayed at the support for fundamentalist Christian ideas this episode has shone a spotlight on, which thankfully, have been alien to this country until very recently.

Obviously prohibiting speech or closing it down with violence is inexcusable, but I can’t say I find the particular debates we’re having these days give me much hope for the future. Debate and discussion, great. Better than the alternative. But don’t expect me to be thrilled that women’s autonomy and equality is a political football.

I absolutely agree. And I find the fact that he chose to debate almost exclusively with young people deeply troubling.

I saw his debate and he was very aggressive and not letting the other person speak. So much for being a debater.

On Reddit, there is a thread about him being white washed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/1nejcop/the_white_washing_of_charlie_kirk_has_been_insane/?chainedPosts=t3_1ne8wjd

He was a MAGA groomer. Omitting the sexual aspects, a control freak like Epstein, getting them young and unformed and twisting their perception.

.

I will share this again. You are saying that what he says here, referring to four highly educated, high achieving, black women as "not having the brain processing power to be taken seriously," saying that they have stolen their positions from white people, is not racist?

.

I don't see how any context makes the things he says not racist...

No, what you saw was him editing those debates for his page to save face bc he was so pathetic. After the uni kids here whipped him good, he left a tweet saying not to visit the UK bc he was such a sore loser, it was actually quite hilarious. He was a just another idiot fundamentalist, and you can't really reason with someone so deluded can you?

He will get a big state funeral bc he was a shitty person and he chortled Trump's balls on a regular basis, that's all you need to do to get ahead in America these days.

Mmm if the level of your post is indicative of what you see as a good argument and a good example of debating skills, I can see the problem!!!!

The comments about black pilots are regarding DEI though. Are they there because they are the best candidate or to fulfil DEI requirements?

We've just had a perfect example in this country. The 'president' of the Oxford Union, a prestigious debating society got ABB at A level. To get into Oxford you need generally AAA or more likely A*. He clearly wasn't best qualified or the best candidate was he but he got in via a DEI cheat thing. It is ok to challenge that.

Disclaimer I haven't watched the full 8mins of the clip.

Link to the Oxford thing, please.

No, they are an assumption that a black person cannot have the same ability as a white person. To say that they stole a white person's place implies that only a white person could be good enough.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of DEI. Nobody is going to employed as a pilot or a surgeon without having the appropriate qualification or ability to do the job. People are not given those qualifications for being black. (They may be awarded a place at university under a dei initiative but they still have to earn the qualification). If someone is employed as a pilot that is because they have the ability and qualifications to be there irrespective of colour. The only thing that might happen is that when choosing between qualified people, the one from a disadvantaged background may be chosen over someone from a more privileged background.

The entry requirements for Oxford probably depend on the course you are studying. Someone getting top grades from a privileged background is not necessarily smarter than someone with slightly lower grades from a disadvantaged background. If that were the case private schools would be completely unnecessary because it wouldn't make any difference to people's outcomes. Recognition of that is why you get contextual offers. Being black isn't listed as one of the reasons contextual offers are given on the UCAS website so I'm not sure it is a major consideration.

I believe the president of the Oxford Union is elected so presumably they had to convince voters that they were the best for the role. It certainly wouldn't have been handed to anyone because of dei.

Here's the sneaky poisonous thing though. Could DEI be abused? Sure. But the suggestion is those abuses - the hiring and promotion of people undeserving or underqualified - did not happen before DEI and are the exclusive realm of Black, Indigenous, People of Colour and women.

The default position and framing of the debate is that no white man has ever been hired and promoted when undeserved or underqualified. All white men earn their positions fairly. All white male pilots are 100% without a doubt the best qualified for that position. All white men are by default competent and decent while all BIPOC and women are suspect because their presence in those positions doesn't fit the intellect and station in society assigned to them by certain sections of society. Which is of course absolutely untrue, and massively racist and sexist as well as divorced from the all too common reality of underqualified white men promoted above more deserving BIPOC & women candidates, hence the actual need for DEI in the first place - but it is what you have to accept to then believe DEI is the problem and not, say, incompetent hiring managers.

The same with the Oxford president - are you saying no white male ever cheated his way into positions at Oxford? Never cheated his way into those A* grades? Never got in off Daddy's connections even though their grades are shit? Because I'm betting that's absolutely not true either. It's just we tend to assume they deserve to be there so we don't go looking, or if discovered quite often it's brushed under the carpet as an understandable mistake and really of little consequence anyway. It only becomes a big deal for the people who don't belong in those positions by default.

And yes, what @lkjhgfdsa said. No airline is hiring unqualified pilots, DEI or otherwise. It's a disingenuous example showcasing both the underlying racist framing, and the manipulation of the public toward extremism.

Cheat, DEI or contextual offer?

Nit-picking one or two lines doesn't change the substance of Kirk's own words.