[pauldavis]

Wow, look at the previous post on that site, from the same guy:

"They are rigging elections, they are botching troop withdrawals to flood western countries with refugees, the American border is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of people, they are buying up single family homes and pricing you out of the market, they are printing endless money and inflating your currency."

[allsystemsgo]

I mean, he’s using his first amendment rights. That’s the point. What does his prior comments have to do with this?

[Ajedi32]

Tribalism. "Look! This person disagrees with you on this other unrelated topic. He's with the enemy, all his opinions are invalid!"

Kind of a sad state of affairs, but that's where we're at right now with political discourse in the United States. (And probably the whole world, to some extent. It's human nature.)

[uniqueid]

It's a reminder that Torba didn't create Gab to facilitate 'free speech'.

Gab is a site that censors 'obscenity' and whose CEO refuses to deal with journalists if they don't practise the same religion as him.

Gab exists only to facilitate far-right extremism, and 'hate speech' is the only form of unpopular speech for which Torba shows enthusiasm.

[Cyberthal]

Yeah, no. You can curse all you like on Gab. Porn is censored.

There is a natural segregation between the Internet that is for porn, and the rest of it. For bandwidth reasons alone.

[kypro]

Eh, I also hate it when people have differing opinions to myself. Someone should really do something about this.

[happytoexplain]

Should nobody face criticism? The parent didn't imply the user should be banned.

The "you hate people for having a different opinion than you" accusation seems to be disproportionately levied against left-ish or anti-Trump sentiment, but pro-Trump sentiment is disproportionately in the flavor of "hating you for having a different opinion", in my opinion.

[kypro]

> Should nobody face criticism? The parent didn't imply the user should be banned.

Reading it again, I think you're right -- I should have been more charitable.

That said, I guess I didn't see the point the parent was trying to make. You see this kind of outrage stuff on Twitter and Reddit a lot as a reason to dismiss or ban someone. For example, if you express the wrong opinion on trans issues you're not allowed to express an opinion on anything Twitter.

I also agree it's something disproportionately levied against those with left-ish views, but I'd argue that's because this is a tactic used primarily by the left. I do also agree that the pro-Trump cohort often hates people with different opinions. I don't think either is good, but one side seems to be more likely to take their "hate" further and use it as a reason to censor.

[debacle]

You are free to log onto Gab and criticize him. That's the whole point.

[vangelis]

No, not really, they're pretty quick with the ban hammer against heathens and communists.

[masklinn]

Torba is the cofounder and CEO of gab, that’s about what you’d expect.

[SergeAx]

I am not from US, but even I see and partially feel USD inflation due to money printing (not sure, by the way, if this or previous administration is currently winning the printing contest). The troops are now withdrawn, and refugees are following and a lot more will follow.

I mean, the US society is definitely divided, and it seems that the division is surely not 90/10, but probably more like 60/40. What I think is better way for majority is to take over the burden of criticizing the current administration, thus partially disarming opposition.