Black people don’t really matter but the loss of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy.

[QOrion]

I posted this in response to a short thread on Feminism and Women’s Rights but I want more people to see it. I want to have my say, even if I’m late to the conversation, and even if most people don’t care. I don’t expect many replies but maybe I’ll make some people think about what I’m saying.

I guess none of you are black. It’s the only way you can go out of your way to highlight this man’s ’virtues’. I don’t believe anyone is born bad or is irredeemably bad, I guess that’s my Christian upbringing, but I also don’t understand the deification of this man and the need for many people on this website to paint him in the best possible light. He’s not the first public figure to be shot and killed, even this year. If those deaths were even mentioned on Mumsnet, they certainly weren’t given much attention.

I’d never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was shot and his death had little impact on me. I have serious issues in my own life, people are shot and killed in America every day and there is a lot of suffering going on around the world, a lot of atrocities committed. It didn’t seem to be an incident that affected me in any significant way, even when I discovered his position on transgender ideology. I share essentially the same position on transgender ideology with many people I don’t want to be associated with.

Then I read his comments about black people. I can’t wax lyrical about how Charlie Kirk was ‘decent’ and ‘respectful’. How, ‘Isn’t it nice he gave his political opponents a platform’. And I can’t feel any kind of kinship with people who, knowing what he’s said about black people, still feel compelled to highlight his good qualities.

Let me be clear: I don’t believe he should have been killed. I don’t even support the death penalty in any circumstance, so I can hardly support Charlie Kirk being killed. But I am learning, not for the first time, that Mumsnetters in general, and users of this subforum (FWR) tend to ignore black people and our concerns, until we are useful. Whether that is taking cases to court when much is made of the claimant’s ethnic heritage (why?) or the perennial ‘transgenderism is womanface, it’s offensive like blackface’.

You have no idea and I think it is possible you will never understand just how much slights about my ethnic heritage cut deep. Slights to my womanhood are pretty trivial in comparison. I think this is something white women will never understand. So, you go on singing the virtues of Charlie Kirk. We’ll be here the next time you need to exploit us for your own purposes.

As for Iryna Zarutska, i don’t care what anyone says, if she was the only black woman on a bus full of white people, who was stabbed by a white man then bled to death as white people watched and her killer said “I got the black girl”, there’d be total uproar and demands for bloods. There’d be riots. Nobody would be making excuses for her killer. But apparently racism only works one way

Why do you ignore that one of the people who ran from another carriage to help the victim (after the killer had left) was a black man?

And how did you hear him say 'I got the white girl' when there is no sound on the CCTV?

There has been a black woman stabbed to death on a bus in the USA by a white man and there was not “total uproar”.

And a black male passenger did go to assist Zarutska after she was attacked.

If you did only mean to say that Iryna didn't get coverage even though she's white, why mention she was killed by a black man?

Charlie Kirk was a white man from a Republican family killed by a white man from a Republican family.

There are more graphic videos which shouldn't be shared here with sound. Is it so hard to believe that a mentally ill man might also be racist?

As I've repeatedly said I used her killing to illustrate the point that CK threads and coverage was due to him being famous not because he was white. The OP thinks CK had publicity due to being white.

And about the death of Charlie Kirk - it’s not that they’re sad of the loss of this particular person. It’s about the violent cessation of someone exercising their free speech. It’s an attack on us all, an attack on anyone whose views don’t aligns with a violent person’s. It’s terrifying. I agree with Charlie Kirk on transgender views. I’m not a bad person to worthy of death but many people believe so. We should all be alarmed about his death no matter what you thought of his views

We don’t have a motive yet

So you've shared the graphic video of her in the lead up to her stabbing and when she was bleeding to death, but you don't want to share a video of what he says? What does he say? You can just type it.

Can you prove that? Because all we know for sure here is that a white American man killed another white American man, and because the only person in a position to explain why has evoked his rights to silence, at present, this is for reasons unknown. As far as I'm aware we have no idea whether the killer disagreed with all of CKs views, some of them, or indeed none of them and killed him for reasons other than his views. So, can you explain why you are linking the views of a black woman in the UK and those who agree with her that CK was racist, with the circumstances that caused the death of a white man at the hands of another white man?

Where has OP said that?

I’ve heard him say “I got that white girl”.
No bionic hearing needed

These videos can be found on X. I feel desperately angry that people are so pre occupied with being right in they’re happy to deny the very obvious motives of the violent death of a young woman

Id also like to point out to people the death happened a month ago. we didn’t hear right away because the information was suppressed. Think about why

The OPs thread title is literally:

"Black people don’t really matter but the loss of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy. "

I.E. black people don't matter but white Charlie Kirk does.... it's right there on the title.

I argued he got the publicly because he was FAMOUS not because he was white. Simple as that.

The information was not “suppressed”.

That something did not make global news in seconds does not mean it was suppressed.

And the motives are not “obvious” given the allegations made about the killer’s mental health and whether or not he will be declared in compos mentis.

Usually something like this makes the news in a day though.

Why do you think it didn’t?

Motives aren’t obvious?

If a white man stabbed a black girl and said lI got that black girl” would you deny the motive was racism?

“I got that white girl”
”I got that white girl”

I think that’s how you are choosing to read it.

If you read beyond the headline it is quite clear OP’s stance and it is not that Kirk is receiving coverage because he is white. She is making the point that a lot of people find it easy to champion him because they were not part of a
group / part of groups on the receiving end of his vitriol.

It is not possible to extract motive from that statement.

Can you link to the tweet on X? Because I've looked and I can't see a single piece of coverage that says he said that. Fox News would definitely have reported that.

The title is literally saying he’s getting attention because he’s whkte

the OP also thinks nobody on MN is black

Can you share a link or the tweet? Because I've searched and can't see it. The CCTV is silent on the train.

It’s absolutely not true that “usually” stories like this make the news in a day.

Most murders never make the news. I posted a story just above of a black woman killed by a white man back in 2018 which did not make global news (and still has not till this day.)

It was not “suppressed”. It simply was not big news till it was big news.

Her killing has been covered in articles by CNN, The New York Times, The BBC, The Independent, The New York Post and others.

And there is nothing anywhere that says he said 'I got that white girl'. Because the CCTV on the train is silent.

So, you are saying that the black man killed the white girl because she was white? If this is the case, what does it illustrate? That some dangerous men are black and hate white people? It would be ridiculous to assume otherwise. But what argument does this support on a wider level? And what evidence do you have this was 'surpressed'? And who by? And to what end? I wish people would stop hinting sagely and say what they mean and prove it.

That’s not white the title says but if you choose to read it that way that’s on you.

I also don’t think it’s that wild to suggest MN is predominantly non-black which skews the reception Kirk’s death has received. On a black majority board it would be viewed rather differently.

Yes, the fact that 97% of killers are men is the issue here. Women are at risk from men, it's not limited to any race or colour.