"THEY REMOVE ILLEGAL SHIT THATS NOT FREE SPEECH!!!!"

sound like fucking poltifact

lol well lets see. maybe there was somthing else they banned 😛

calls to violence and kiddie porn

well lolli stuff too. i suppose. but that falls under child pron in some places

and yes yes i know, its a drawing

It won't be anything most people care about, but that's fine, its still censorship when they ban freedom of speed/expression, which was yes the loli stuff they censored.

thts really going to be a deal breaker for you man?

no lollis?

So, you are good with censorship, as long as its something you don't like?

cute.

i dont have a dog in the lolli fight bro

if you want to go jack off to kiddies, be my guest

I'm not asking you to...

beastiality is banned as well.

are you going to crusade for that?

That would depend if you are talking about fiction or not.
Bestiality is illegal in real life... Not in stories tho.

fair enough.

I argue against any censorship, it doesn't matter how people feel about it that matters. Its not up to others what should be "allowed" for free humans to do (as long as its not illegal).

look man, i get the NAP, but this is such a fringe issue that would do more harm than good for gab. The goal is to get the idea of free speech on the internet to spread. having cartoon kiddie porn as the face of the movement isnt smart. baby steps bro, baby steps. An internet bill of rights is what you should really be focusing on, as that will achieve your goals.

and the MSM will make it the face of the movement, you can count on that

I would have less of a problem with gab if they didn't say they stand up for free speech, because any censorship of it makes this statement untrue (a lie).
And you don't back down from a principle because it might "look" bad..
The MSM is more then happy to call gab a nazi center, and even if it was, i would defend nazis right to speak (just like i do with any other group), as long as they weren't calling for direct violence.

A true free man needs his child pornography

I dont think its backing away from ones principles. Its compromising to make progress towards ones principles.

Exactly. Compromise is nessacry

you can hold all the principles you want, but if you cant incrementally bring ppl over to your side, then what is the point?

Also hard to expand if the gubmint comes breaking down your door for cp

radical change will always be rejected

akin to the boiling a frog analogy

Its a good thing no one here is talking about CP then...

bro we're being hyperbolic when we say that

@Big T The frog analogy is a false, frogs wouldn't die like that.

....

its a valid analogy.

no one is focusing on conducting a study to see if a frog will actually stay in a pot

its commentary on social change is useful

there's all kinds of silly phrases that have odd origins, but are very useful in describing things

btw they just arrested the berkeley assault suspect. campus wide email just went out

Zachary Greenberg is his name

Yes, i understand all of that.
But its not a useful analogy if its not (somewhat) accurate, but to be clear i understand your point.
This still hasn't changed what i said. So many people foolishly say, "Oh, so this is the hill you want to die on".
All they are saying is "Oh, so being free is a hill you want to die on", and yes, that's a principle, any backing away from that means its no longer a principle.
Which by the way i'm only arguing other people about, because our supreme court sides with my argument.

we will just have to agree to disagree then.