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!

@GetOffMyLan really? That was the only reason Charlie Kirk was relevant? That doesn’t even make any sense.

'A piece of shit'. No, not better at all.

So much nastiness, so much toxicity and sneering. Accusing a man of being hate filled by being hate filled yourself. It's his accusers who need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

The outpouring of support for him has been massive. I've quite enjoyed seeing clips of him politely wiping the floor with rabid critics. He was very good at keeping his cool.

Haters try to #BeMoreCharlieKirk

He was very polite and respectful and an excellent debater. That does not detract from the fact that his opinions were mostly abhorrent.
For the avoidance of doubt, that does not mean I think his murder was anything but horrific and completely unacceptable.

Yes #BeMoreCharlieKirk, the world really benefits from more misogynistic, bigoted and racist views. How aspirational!

Thoughts and prayers 🙏🏻🤣🙄

What's funny?

I've watched plenty of clips and interviews in the last couple of days. He was a religious man who displayed similar beliefs to other religious people regarding LGBT, trans and abortion and we tolerate other religions don't we? Well I do. Try it.

I've seen lots of hate filled crap and it's all been from opponents of his beliefs. Thick people who just scrabble with words trying to debate and failing.

If the person who got shot was left wing, I doubt many of the posters on this thread would give a damn about the public reaction and would indeed be celebrating themselves.

The pseudo empathy and moral outrage is so performative. No one is buying it.

You will defend a person who promotes misogyny and bigotry and racism as long as they are in agreement with your views on trans rights. That’s what it comes down to. That says everything about you as a person. You can try to minimise, deny and gaslight all you want but CK’s words are there for everyone to read and hear.

@Plastictreees when have people on the right openly celebrated the death of someone on the left? Genuine question as I’m not aware of this happening.

If a person on the left was murdered I would say exactly the same and would not be celebrating because I'm not sick af.

I'm defending his right to have had his beliefs as many religious people do. It's called tolerance.

You do you, but I don’t ‘tolerate’ (e.g endorse and support) misogynistic , racist and bigoted beliefs which are harmful to women.

I am on the left, and I can assure you @Plastictreees that if someone more views I more closely align with, a “leftie” was murdered, I’d be equally as disappointed with if this kind of language was being used.

I would think it was disrespectful, lacked basic human dignity, and was horrendously timed.

@Plastictreees Presumably you feel the same then about Catholicism, Islam, Evangelical Christian and Jewish orthodoxy teachings amongst other faiths? Although I am curious about Charlie Kirk’s racism - are there any links?

Good. Me too.

I’m unsure why we shouldn’t apply that same principle now?

If it would be disrespectful, lacking human dignity and poorly timed if it were a person on the left… what’s the difference?

Are we really supposed to only offer respect and dignity to people we approve of?

Funnily enough I’m on the left too but I care more about Free Speech than left or right. I admired CK for his efforts in encouraging anyone and everyone to openly challenge his ideas.

What are you talking about? I never said I condone CK’s murder, or anyone celebrating it.

Rachel Held Evans. Progressive Christian, often debated conservative Christians and did very very well with this. They hated her. She got sick and died unexpectedly several years ago, 37 years old leaving behind her husband and small children. I remember reading the absolute poison the Christian right published about her - not just online comments, op-eds, blog posts, articles. All saying (or implying in holy language that anyone who has been in that system can decode) God had taken her out as the evil spawn of Satan she was and they were so utterly grateful for it. It was disgusting. I remember the same toward anyone who was openly gay. They got what was coming to them, apparently. So did George Floyd, or any other black man murdered by police (or ex-police) - the price of resisting arrest, or otherwise not kowtowing to white men who know better.

When Ozzy died - so many posts shared by people I know, all right wing religious conservatives - "oh the prince of darkness has now met the King Of Kings, I wonder what happened next" - the inference being haha, Ozzy's now in hell we win. No idea of his politics, but he was an enemy of the right-wing Christians.

And let's not forgot the attack on the Pelosi's. The commentary online I saw was vile. Also the open calls for assassination of the "chimp in office" - Obama.

Let's be real. The extremes of both left and right, and the public expression of both, have been lacking in decorum or humanity for a long time. You should be shocked by it all.

Come along women of MN. Hating men who despise women's autonomy is wrong. Let's do as we're told and be grateful for it. No hating the haters, or they might not want to marry us, then what would we do?

What?! You were over on the other thread having a problem with women who wanted to retain their right to sex based spaces. You were so annoyed that a thread was being derailed by ‘trans issues’, despite being told it was a women’s rights issue.

Rabid trans ideology is the biggest current men’s rights moment going which is harmful to women, backed up by examples on that thread. You then couldn’t put one articulate argument across as to why you support this. Don’t make me laugh.

@AccidentallyWesAnderson Your post is lies. I was saying there the same as I am here - women who support misogynists, just because they are against trans rights, are not feminists. You were trying to railroad me into a trans debate, which was not the purpose of the thread. The thread was questioning why women are endorsing misogynist beliefs. But you were incapable of discussion without centering your beliefs around trans people.

I’ve yet to see you form a coherent argument. It’s all personal attacks, hyperbole and outright lying. Thoughts and prayers to you 🙏🏻

@ForeverScout but surely the point is that none of the people named were attacked specifically because of their lawful and publically expressed political views?

Nope, women’s rights. To explain to you, again, (and again), if it were merely trans rights it would include trans men, who are female. It doesn’t. It’s women’s rights to sex based spaces away from biological
men. Clue is in the name. Sex.

You can’t really talk about arguments when you couldn’t muster up anything other than ‘waaah I’m not taking about trans people!’

Despite the fact it was you talking about trans people, and you came back to bring up trans people even after you said you weren’t going to talk about trans people any more. The rest of us were putting forward points as to why women deserve the right to sex based spaces and sports based on evidence and lived experience. Tedious you called it.

Not lying and hyperbole. If it was you would’ve been able to coherently argue it. You couldn’t and didn’t. It’s all there to see.

My toes have curled themselves inside out at your thoughts and prayers comment.

That's not what was asked. When has anyone on the right celebrated the death of someone on the left. I answered. You didn't specify cause of death. But if it's unclear, the Pelosi's was a political attack that was intended to end in death. There have been a number of attacks on left-wing politicians, including murders, that have not resulted in the same "freedom of speech" outcry. In fact, despite deaths - murders - of police officers at the capitol and the crowd their baying for blood and actively wanting to kill Mike Pence, Trump gave the offenders full pardons. Nothing to see here, political violence is fine, move along. And now he's mad and calling it evil? He cleared the way!

Some I don't know their politics. But the Christian right openly celebrated their deaths. Ozzy - his voice was the reason for celebration, literally. He proclaimed he was the prince of darkness. People who are openly gay use their voice to say so, and to support their rights. Rachel was well known and very outspoken, and targeted with death threats and hate mail for it.

Check out the responses to the attacks on Nancy Pelosi and her husband.

@ForeverScout I’m sure we can agree there are complete nutters on both sides (such as the QAnon supporter who attacked Pelosi) but it seems to me the Left has considerably more form in celebrating the passing of people on the Right, see the reaction to Thatcher’s death amongst others.

None of the cases you cite come anywhere near the scale of the reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder and of course none of these people were murdered for their political views. And yes, I’m completely horrified by it all.

I would also add Turning Point's professor watchlist effectively doxxed academics Charlie Kirk & co disagreed with, sending mobs and witch hunts after them which resulted in death threats, rape threats etc. Despite knowing this he didn't take it down or discontinue the project. I really don't think CK was as big a supporter of everyone's right to their own views and freedom of speech as people make out. Though he ensured he had plausible deniability, so I guess that's ok then.