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!

OK. I absolutely agree that nobody should be celebrating his death, or saying he got what was coming to him. But the trouble is that for some people saying that his views were abhorrent and discussing that seems to be being put in that category. Which I think is an attempt to silence opinion. Which is never a good thing. And something his fans say Kirk was against.

I don’t judge people’s right to respect based on how much they’ve given others.

HTH.

@SleeplessInWherever are you also forgetting this is not a memorial thread for Charlie btw? No one is trying to mourn on this thread and being told not to, his family aren't on here. The OP is already creating a space for the opposite discussion and she was entitled to and instead of clicking away and going to any of spaces people are doing what you want and eulogizing the guy you've come here to tell people to stop and continually critique them under the guise of not supporting the man but supporting free speech and debate.

He did say that yes. If people find that objectionable they could have quoted that in their post-murder take downs of him. They clearly thought the made up quote would whip up more anger at him though.

Did he though, answer the question? How soon. After George Floyd was murdered did he start to talk about him disgustingly? If you don't know, I'm not sure why you think you are in a position to lecture people. All people are saying about Charlie is his own words or actions reported factually.

You don't get to insist a black woman treats a racist man with the same amount of forgiveness as you do. You don't get to insist people wait for after his funeral to talk about his actions and their continued legacy of harm.

Why? Is getting into Oxford not enough of a qualifier to be considered for the post? Or must you now get into Oxford without a contextual offer?

'But the trouble is that for some people saying that his views were abhorrent and discussing that seems to be being put in that category'

Nope. Most of us have said you didn't have to agree with all his views I certainly didn't but the point is 'karma is a bitch' / 'nazi'/ 'evil man' regarding someone horrifically murdered is more toxic than anything he said.

I haven’t eulogised him, have I. I’ve said quite a few times that I didn’t agree with his views.

Do you always make stuff up?

Why don't you answer clearly do you think that stating that white people are inherently entitled and worthy of these positions more so than black people objectionable?

Is it? Given he said more, and worse, about George Floyd and school shooting victims?

Again a hiding a direct question - this thread is specifically for those appalled by how Kirk is being painted in a false light and the political harm he's done - why come here of all criticise people speaking of him? What's your actual intention?

You don't agree with his views but repeatedly fail to answer why his insurrection actions, racism, homophobia and sexism aren't stopping you going to bat for him on a thread particularly about the reality of him. No one is forcing you to be on a thread and you're not here defending him on a thread intended for sympathy and tributes yet you are criticising people as though they're making these comments on that thread. This is why, because you've given no logical reason, I was embarrassed for you.

What do you mean “I don’t get to,” yes I do? I do get to.

Not defending the man, definitely his right to have views that I disagreed with.

Strange loop you’re getting us caught in here.

Sorry..you actually think you get to insist on what a black woman says about a man who thought I was subhuman to him?

I think we found something else you guys agreed on. At least your free speech and tolerance mask has come off.

But not OP and others rights to the view that there isn't a set time on when we can call a racist a racist after he did. Perhaps, if you so defend people rights to have views you disagree with, don't tell a black woman what she must do and not do and defend my right to act in a way you disagree with?

Not quite.

Firstly, I had no idea of your ethnicity until you threw it at me in the late stages of a discussion.

Secondly, I wasn’t aware there were things people didn’t “get to” say. You either believe in free speech or you don’t.

'But not OP and others rights to the view that there isn't a set time on when we can call a racist a racist after he did'

Call him a racist then (although you'll find lots of testament from poc online saying how he helped them so he wasn't a racist). It's just the abuse that is sickening.

Can you really not see the difference between stating how your opinion and beliefs differed from his and all the rabid, hysterical attacks?

I absolutely agree with you there. I’m just saying for those sting he had ABB or whatever are likely to find that he’s not the first person to be in the post with those grades.

When you’re in, the grades are irrelevant.

Just to say that I am enjoying your work on this thread. And it has been interesting to watch the less articulate and intelligent flounder under your questioning.

Of course its not.

He had a massive platform to spread his misogynist, bigoted and racist views. What he stood for was abhorrent. Of course him being killed just means that things will become even more polarising and extreme. But his death was no great loss to humanity. I can say that whilst simultaneously believing that all murder is wrong (including state sanctioned murder), and not condoning his.

Well I for one have been prompted to go back and listen to a lot of Charlie Kirk and so many of the claims on this thread as to what he stood for are absolute horseshit.

There's actually quite a lot of info out there already, and just bc he was a Trump sycophant doesn't make it an assassination, he was in no way important enough for that, despite how much the right wants to rile people up about it.

A quote from a cursory Google 'Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden or secret attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important. It may be prompted by political, ideological, religious, financial, or military motives'.

I think we can agree he was prominent in the US, it was obviously wilful and sudden and allegedly motivated by political, ideologic and religious hate. So, an assassination.

Why nitpick over semantics though and a 'sycophant' sneer too! Crass and inappropriate.

Everyone in Trump's inner circle is a sycophant, Trump is incredibly stupid with a big ego, he can only surround himself with incompetent people who kiss his ass which is the only reason why a piece of shit like Kirk was relevant. Better?