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!

False equivalence. CKs manner of death (public, filmed, shocking) and the online following he cultivated plus AI and algorithms = massive response.

I only know about the pregnancy comment. He was pretty upset about the idea but he considers a fetus a baby at conception so he wouldnt want to hurt the baby, no. He said he would make sure the baby was delivered somehow. I dont agree either but that’s his view and he genuinely thinks it’s the best option for something so henious.

In his defence, the real issue is stopping whoever is raping a ten year old.

In all honesty, my main concern with CK was that he was close to trump.

And again that's not what you asked. I have witnessed disgusting behavior by both sides to various deaths over the years. You seem unable to admit or see this is a both / and problem, rather than a "left is evil" problem, so I will take my leave (pun intended).

@ForeverScout my initial question was prompted by a poster arguing that if a left wing figure was murdered in similar circumstances to Charlie Kirk the reaction from the right would be the same as we are currently seeing. I just don’t see that and none of the cases you quote support it.

Pelosi is the only one who was remotely political and the negative response was niche and mocking rather than generally gleeful in any mainstream sense.

The scale of the reaction to Trump’s assassination attempts and the passing of Thatcher for example is unmatched by anything on the right in recent years.

My guess is your basic Google search has confirmed your bias then. Certainly your algorithm will be feeding you more and more extreme versions of what you're clicking on re CK. My algorithm re him is fairly sensible, whereas my 14yr old son had the full video of the shooting inserted into an otherwise normal video that was suggested to him, which is just fantastic. He got to see a guy bleed out in full colour unexpectedly on his screen - likely because he is the demographic those seeking to radicalise target. People are seeing different things online.

I have no problem believing some left wing people have said awful things, even though I haven't seen much of it. I have seen awful stuff of the same tone from right wingers over the years, until I deliberately blocked everything that led to those posts showing up as it was affecting my mental health. You seem to have trouble believing it because you haven't seen it and it doesn't fit your narrative ie the left is evil. That's your prerogative, doesn't make it true.

I mean the stuff when Obama was in power was insane. So many calls for assassination. And then during Trump's run for president - likewise toward Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ, black people. Death threats during Covid to teachers, civil servants, health workers?You really really didn't see any of that? Don't believe it? Cos I sure did. Maybe it didn't affect you and yours. It did mine. One of my relatives nearly quit teaching as their school was targeted by right wing nutters every single day and she never knew it any of them were armed. But no you're right, political violence and extremism is only a left wing problem. Sure.

That teacher only kept teaching because she was scared her students would be murdered and no one would be there to protect them, by the way. She votes left. Gay too, to boot. Pure evil that one.

@ForeverScout How is Covid a left or right issue?

So, we can't then... this will have serious consequences. I'd rather we could find a way

Nice bit of minimising.

The reaction to the Pelosi attack was by no means "niche". They even got in on it on Fox News. Nor was it "mocking" as much of it was based on grotesque anti-gay stereotypes.

It shouldn't have been, but religious right leaders whipped up a frenzy over religious rights being taken away, Qanon was in there with personal liberties and almost every conspiracy theory going, and the deep state aka the left / Dems whatever were at fault, and schools were targets because there were false reports teachers were forcibly vaccinating kids. Hence unstable, angry and scared people from mostly the right wing side of the fence showing up at schools 'protesting' in some parts of the state, making death threats to teachers, and horrific rhetoric online towards them. It shouldn't have been a left / right issue but it was made one by right and far right groups.

I will also add to say - the increasing scale of reactions is in part evidence of an increasingly inflamed political environment, however online it is largely being driven and maximized by bots, trolls & AI. Your algorithm is engineered by tech bros to make you angry thereby keeping you engaged (more $ for them), and there are multiple bad actors involved for their own end. No doubt Russia has an interest in keeping western attention diverted from their incursion into Polish airspace. Various other groups, including Trump & co, have their own agendas. CKs murder was horrific but there is also no doubt it is being weaponized to further destabilize society and the scale and speed of what is now possible is staggering. Unfortunately those who play into right is evil / left is evil are helping encourage the very violence they decry.

I've spotted at least two bots within mumsnet on these threads (speed of reply is a dead giveaway, as well as one oddly worded post with a typo repeated on multiple threads by different usernames within a two hour period). Like cockroaches, when you spot one you know there's more in operation. Just something to keep in mind.

God, that Bob Vylan arsehole filmed at one of his gigs shouting Kirk was a 'piece of shit, pronouns were/was, if you say shit 'bang' <paraphrasing>. Now whining on that he wasn't celebrating at all. All these people online cheering and making sick comments now regretting it as they realise how appalling it was to behave like that.

The faux moral outrage and pseudo empathy continues to be laughable. How can you possibly claim moral superiority when you are endorsing someone who stood for misogyny and bigotry.

Not endorsing anyone. It isn't 'faux' anything. .

It might be a newsflash to some but you can disagree with someone's beliefs without being vile if they are murdered.

I absolutely claim moral superiority to some of the sick crap I've seen posted online.

It's why liberals always lose. Conservatives see gun deaths regularly, many of them kids, and say we will do nothing it is what it is, including kirk. Then one misogynistic, nazi piece of shit is shot and suddenly liberals fall over themselves to condemn it and act as if he wasn't a horrible person who fully supported this happening to other people. The amount of women here, crying over a misogynistic racist who would have laughed in their faces if one of their kids had been shot in a school is just pathetic really.

I agree that it’s in poor taste to celebrate any murder. I don’t condone that. I am pointing out the hypocrisy displayed by those
defending, supporting and endorsing CK’s well documented racist, misogynistic and bigoted views and statements. Whilst being outraged by those who feel it’s no great loss to humanity that a person who held such views that are detrimental to society is dead.

@Plastictreees

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.

If the person that had been shot had been left wing, nobody would have been allowed to debate anything. #Nodebate, remember where that came from.

Additionally

If the left had been open to debate then CK and others (and there are quite a few including BAME/POC) wouldn't have had the opening to start these "change my mind" tours.

As for many of the "quotes" and soundbites about CK, many are taken out of context, and I would suggest that people actually watch and listen to what he says before making your mind up about this man.

Ah, the old ‘taken out of context’ lie. CK’s words are well documented for all to read and hear. He is a racist, misogynist bigot.

You are free to agree with him. That makes you the same thing.

Just don’t pretend you are in the position to claim any moral superiority whatsoever.

Ah the old "you must agree with him" BS. It getting very old, very fast.

If you truly had any any documented evidence you would post it.
Actually you wouldn't because that requires effort and would prove you wrong.

He said many things that you could back up and put in context, that would actually prove your point, there are also many "quotes" taken out of context, that put him in a poor/bad light.

But carry on pretending to be morally superior.

Documented evidence has been posted throughout endless threads, and is there all over the internet for the world to see. You are being wilfully blind to deny CK had misogynist and racist views.

I am not claiming to be morally superior. I am pointing out the hypocrisy in those defending CK acting morally superior.

I also did not say you had to agree with him. I said you are free to. Do you struggle with reading comprehension or are you deliberately twisting my words because you are unable to form a strong rebuttal?

He wasn't a racist, misogynistic bigot. He was religious so his beliefs re LGBT and marriage reflected that, he had lots of support from poc so he was not a racist just queried DEI initiatives and he had concerns about illegal immigration as do many people.

Anyway his legacy will live on, hate filled lefties are being challenged and as we've seen on this thread their only defence is abuse and bile. So yeah, I'm morally superior to that.

Ah and now we go to the old "struggle with reading comprehension".
I'm not twisting your words, they are there for all to see.

It is very easy to prove what CK said. you could post links to his many videos, but you choose not to and I find that very telling.

I am not going to support all of CK's views but I am also not going to stand by whilst those that complain about their words being twisted are happy being a hypocrite and twist the words of a man that was assassinated in cold blood for having the audacity to try and engage people in debate.

His views are still racist, misogynistic and bigoted even if they are based on extremes of religion. This isn’t the ‘gotcha’ you seem to think it is.

Thoughts and prayers to his supporters 🙏🏻😘

Have to admit my blood ran cold when his wife talked about his dream to "revive the American family". I'll reserve judgement on what she / he actually means by that, but I fear I know the gist only too well. For those not well-versed here's a selection of books that cover this topic, bestsellers in the evangelical world CK was appealing to and part of:

1. Every Man's Battle. Men are prisoners of their depraved sex drives, unable to control themselves, women need to help them by being not so tempting - covering up, being chaste, not being alone with a man etc. I don't know all of it as even in my semi-brainwashed state I couldn't finish it at the time. Threw it across the room after they painted a middle aged man lusting after his 13yr old niece because she wore short shorts around him as normal male sexual desire. No it's not, that's borderline paedophilia, and we all know the issues the church has with predators. But sure, it's the kid's fault or at the very least her responsibility to not tempt or entice him. I notice this section doesn't appear in later versions, someone must have had some sense - barely. That's the underlying belief system though. All girls from breast-buds onward are dangerous, their bodies to be hidden as part of helping men not to sin. Married women must be available to their husbands to help them alleviate and control their sexual depravity. I mean, I know that definitely really gets me in the mood.

1. On Becoming Babywise. Gary Ezzo, and I believe a couple named Pearls had a similar book but more extreme. Weirdly fixated on controlling how mothers breastfeed and discipline of babies (yes, really, I had friends who followed this and let their baby cry alone on the floor for regular half-hour segments so she would learn not to manipulate her parents at 4mths old). Babywise has a Drs name on it, but earlier versions are almost exactly the same with no input from the good Dr. Implicated in malnourishment of babies, attachment disorders, infant dehydration and death. The Pearls books implicated in child abuse and child deaths from neglect / straight up murders.

1. The Strongwilled Child. Feared by black-sheep, bright / ND evangelical children everywhere. It's hard to understate the harm Dr James Dobson has done through Focus on the Family marriage and parenting resources, and later political efforts. Children are sinners who must be "broken" by their parents and taught to unquestioningly yield to God-given authority - fathers, husbands, (male) pastors. Gee, I wonder who benefits from that. There's a whole host of millennial adults raised in this way that are now telling the truth of what actually went on in their families that lived by this book. It's not pretty.

1. Quiverfull movement. Women are walking wombs, their highest calling is to marry young, keep house and have as many babies as possible. Low education for girls or if they must, homeschool only. Borderline or actual cult depending on area. Above Rubies is one of the key publications.

1. Captivating / Wild at Heart. Girls are princesses who need to be rescued and want to be admired, boys crave an adventure to go on and a beauty to rescue. This carries on into marriage. Full of stereotypes and based on nothing but American cultural fantasies applied across the board. She is but a side character in his grand parade, a prop.

1. Love & Respect. Women want love, men want respect (who knows why both can't want or be given both). Pushed by Focus on the Family and others to encourage women to stay in abusive or unhappy marriages - if she respects him, he will love her and presumably stop hitting her.

1. Too many sexual purity and married sex manuals to count. All up - your worth is tied to your virginity & chastity outside of marriage, inside marriage women are told over and over and over again, implicit and explicit, that saying "no" to your husband whenever he wants sex is not the right or godly thing to do. Just say yes, even if you don't want to. Even if you're sick. Even if you're sad. You don't own your body - he does. Linda Kay Klein's book Pure gives a very good run down of the harm this movement caused (and continues to cause).

I would classify a lot of this content as extremist, and demonstrably harmful. It doesn't get a pass because it's belief based on religion, any more than I think harmful practices under sharia law, or scientology, or any other religion is ok. You can be Christian and not believe or do any of the above. These books and others are passed off under the broad umbrella as reaching and rescuing the family... from "the world", from Satan, who apparently operates primarily via demon feminists, career-women, whores, liberals and the gays. So yeah ... not very excited to see what people from the heartland of this version of Christianity have in store.