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’m actually not anti trans. I’m anti trans children.

Informed adults can do what they please with their bodies. Minors can’t.

Why isn’t your red line a man being publicly murdered?

There's holding opinions and enacting a world that subjugates people. Charlie.kirk was not a random man in the pub with his views - he was active player in bringing in the regime that is rolling back women's rights to abortion with it's aim to fully subjugated women, gay people and people of colour. The people who cheered him on, and Charlie himself, regularly memefied and gloated and mocked the deaths of people in these groups.

If you're not embarrassed, you really haven't done your research.

@Yelleryeller please can you point me to his comments (in full) where he asserted that black people are less than human?

You must be absolutely furious about the teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion, not to mention a number of other faiths. How about Islam on homosexuality, does this equally enrage you?

When have I ever not been against murder? This is the thing, as soon as it's a discussion about the actual facts of the danger this man was to society and that's why I'm not just not mourning him but I'm angered by people misrepresenting him, people wanna flip it to - why aren't you against him being murdered? It's such a silly reaction giving people who are anti Charlie Kirk are pro gun control, anti violence and hate speech, and surely obviously anti murder. I can think he was a violent POS that will continue to harm women, gay people and people of colour in his legacy and not think he deserved to be murdered. I'm just not insecure enough about whether I'm a good person that I feel the need to present myself as having boundless empathy. My care and empathy is for good people like the innocent school children shot the same day or the thousands of people that face abuse at the heads of people who share kirks hateful views because I have a thing called discernment. I noticed you didnt answer why the insurrection against democracy isn't a redline for you in defending people saying they didn't like the guy?

No.. I know who he was.

I don’t believe revelling in his death is a proportionate response.

Whether you like it or not (for the record I don’t), he was involved in a movement that rolled back rights, but it was a movement that had support.

If views like his didn’t have any grounding in the US, why Trump as president and why the popularity of that movement?

He was a cog in a machine that exists because of the support of views like his. He wasn’t a one man band, he was a part of a much much wider problem.

That problem needs addressing, but kicking a dead man while he’s down isn’t going to help anyone.

I repeat, I don’t agree with his views - I agree with his right to have them and freedom of speech even for people I disagree with.

I also believe performative “not grieving” is as ridiculous as performative grieving.

Again though - accurately describing him on an internet forum full of people who admittedly didn't know who he was - is not revelling in his death. Please quote me one post of mine that revels in his death.

If views like his didn’t have any grounding in the US, why Trump as president and why the popularity of that movement?

This is such a naive question - it's almost like you don't see the relevancy of republicans such as Trump and Kirk and their intentions being completely misrepresented in the media and elsewhere and how that allows them to draw people to vote for a party that ultimately will harm them. For someone who thinks mentions of nazis or Hitler are absurd, you can't do simple maths or how views like theirs were tolerated and tolerated and then actioned further and further can you?

You can't talk about the wider issue and choose to keep shutting down people bringing up the wider issue while you placidly suck up to and defend the people with views you disagree with.

That problem needs addressing, but kicking a dead man while he’s down isn’t going to help anyone.

If listing Charlie's own worlds and actions paints him in a bad lights, that's his fault. No one's kicking a dead man by discussing the thing that was his whole life and public persona. Also, he loved to mock murdered men and make up untrue things about them. At least I'm not mocking him not am I telling untruths, no?

Well. That says more about you than it does about me.

My empathy isn’t value based, for the most part. He might have been a man I disagreed with but he’s a father, son and husband. His family deserve sympathy for their loss, whether you liked the man or not. I likely don’t agree with his wife either, but she’s a widow and I would be devastated in her position.

I don’t even know what you’re asking me.

Why don’t I care enough about the insurrection to believe it’s proportionate and dignified to persistently slate a dead man? Is that your question?

The answer is because it still isn’t.

I’ll be candid.

So far in this conversation I’ve been “embarrassed,” or should be, “naive” and “unable to do simple maths.”

You’re doing the age old “reach for personal insults because I can’t agree with someone.”

It’s immature, it’s lazy and boring, and it’s not going to get you anywhere.

Stop with the condescending, and I’ll carry on engaging.

My first response (to you? Or another pp?) was that his family deserve empathy and sympathy but him being a family man didn't mean he himself deserved any of my empathy.

If you don't believe in talking "ill" of the dead - don't. But once again you're a poster crying about people's rights to say anything or hold any belief, while shaming people for doing exactly that and suggesting they should stop doing that.

MAKE.IT.MAKE.SENSE

If you believe in freedom of speech and different opinions being shared, stop critiquing people for sharing theirs. At least people critiquing Kirk are very clear we don't believe in tolerating hate speech, we aren't naively claiming we think everyone should say what they want. If you're gonna claim that, perhaps live by your values and stop policing peoples comments.

I'm not sure anyone's keen for you to keep engaging in defending a racist bigot who wants women in the kitchen but feel free to keep embarrassing yourself.

Can I clarify? Are people saying it’s wrong to disagree with somebody’s views and think them abhorrent because they’re dead?

More personal attacks, you’re getting good at this. Is someone riled up?

Not defending the man. Defending his right to have views, and not die for them.

You’re not making clear that you don’t tolerate hate speech. You’re conducting it.

Stating the FACT that he was involved in the insurrection is not SLATING someone

"I don't think anyone should mention that this guy fanned the flames and assisting the insurrection while those on the right wing are trying to paint him as a martyr"..ok? But surely you understand why he lonely progressive people who care about people's rights don't feel that way?

Personally no. I disagree with most of his views and think them abhorrent.

The dignified thing to do IMO is to let the guy be buried before we start rehashing that.

His family and people who do want to grieve, are, it’s very poor taste to spend any amount of time either encouraging them not to or presenting them with reasons that they shouldn’t.

The man had a wife, children, family, friends - maybe let them cry for longer than a week before publicly declaring he was an arsehole.

It's not a personal attack to state what you're doing. You say you agree with tolerating different views and that you believe in freedom speech yet the only contribution you're making is to tell people to stop sharing their opinion or freely speaking about Charlie Kirk. Its hypocritical. Likewise, if you think someone calling you embarrassing for defending someone who wants you in the kitchen with no bodily autonomy is equivalent to hate speech, that makes sense why you don't understand why the groups racially or homophobically abused by Kirk aren't loving seeing him misrepresented as a "nice guy"

It's not a personal attack to state what you're doing. You say you agree with tolerating different views and that you believe in freedom speech yet the only contribution you're making is to tell people to stop sharing their opinion or freely speaking about Charlie Kirk. Its hypocritical. Likewise, if you think someone calling you embarrassing for defending someone who wants you in the kitchen with no bodily autonomy is equivalent to hate speech, that makes sense why you don't understand why the groups racially or homophobically abused by Kirk aren't loving seeing him misrepresented as a "nice guy"

He lonely? Shame.

Your hurty words questioning my intelligence are hurting my delicate feelings. Please stop.

I did ask @Gloriia when the moratorium was up on pretending he's a good person and at least you've kindly given us an answer. Presumably then in a couple of days you'll stop critiquing people pointing out the facts about him?

I'm sure you also accept that your weeks moratorium isn't completely made up and everyone else will decide what works best for them. I do wonder if you find it so appallling to talk of the dead right now you are even reading threads on the guy.

Oh fgs you can disgaree with someone's views and call their views abhorrent whether dead or alive. Still following?

It's calling the person evil, a nazi etc etc and suggesting he got what was coming as he approved gun ownership that is shit.

One can disgree with opinions without toxicity and bile, as Kirk did. Maybe follow his example hmm?

You could have granted the guy a funeral.

Auto correct - truly. Care to actually answer the question?

Did he wait for after George Floods funeral before he began mocking him and spreading conspiracy theories a out him online? Why does he deserve more respect than he gave others?

Also, your binary timeline is not my business. Perhaps avoid threads of him until after his funeral? You've weirdly chosen to engage in a debate about the guy very soon after his death for someone who doesn't think people should speak ill of them until after the funeral.

I find it interesting that there’s evidence to show that white women have benefitted most from affirmative action but it’s usually black people who have to answer for being in spaces they’re ’not expected’ in.

I’d never heard of Kirk until this week. I think it’s sad for anyone to lose a family member, no matter who they are.

Someone close to me made a comment when they were telling me about him/his death that they wondered if he considered that his death could be part of the price for minimal gun control and he would’ve thought it’s worth it.

The negativity in the world is just draining, people seem to be seeking even further division.

It would be interesting to see what the previous occupants of the post have been. I completely agree with you in that someone people may not perform their best under the rigid conditions of A levels.