If that is the case, why might that be? I don't see why any actual liberal would not want to post here as real liberal philosophy is valid. I can see two possibilities why those who identify as "liberal" while not actually holding liberal values (perhaps the most vocal of the Left today) might not participate here:

a) they are self selecting out of participating because they are not comfortable in a conversation where others are able to challenge their ideas without being able to silence them by claiming an issue with form over substance (ie they're offended) and/or

b) they are self selecting out because like GAB, there is a social penalty for engaging with people with other views

and something we need to be aware of constantly

Well, I was thinking more like it's a human nature; common ideas, beliefs, etc. bind people into groups... In fact, many members here belong to groups and that's natural, isn't it? When you are a group member, of course you feel pressure, positive or negative, and yes, that's something we need to be mindful about. Meanwhile, I have a choice as to whether I want to participate in a discussion or not and how I want to present my opinions. Mild, strong, polite, aggressive, confident, subjective, objective... While we basically don't know anything about each other, our inputs often reflect our personalities - interesting. So, it may not be anything to do with being afraid to say what they want to say - I don't know. Also, thoughts are fluid, so we allow ourselves to change our views. They're all fine by me (although I tend to disregard rude ones - that's nothing to do with free speech; to me it's sheer rudeness).

There are intellectuals and intellectual arguments on this site. The humor is biting and decidedly not politically correct. Low brow, predictable name calling, redicule and insults aren't common. This isn't the sandbox for modern liberals.

No all that sure. Ah well...

IDW strongly encourages expression of diverse ideas. The site expects all content to be thoughtful and non confrontational toward others. No attacking other users. Sure, challenge them on the content of their posts but do not lower the tenor of the conversation by using confrontational language. There are plenty of folks here who are representative of "leftism" and "conservatism" alike. I have only been here for a week or so and I do not think anyone is hesitant to say what is on their mind. I like it that way. IDW wants it that way. So do I

@iThink, interesting. I feel awfully comfortable. And, that made me wonder why? It made me wonder if everyone feels 'safe'. I exist in an environment that's not generally safe for most on this site.

@chuckpo I hear that! Having moved only less than 2 years ago to the Make on the Lake, I see my views are really minority. A city well over 10x larger than the one I moved from and wholly more denched in the leftist ideological farse. I find myself less engaging in full on conversations about important subjects and the news of the day and more often just make one hit-and-run tactical comment that shreds the underpinning of the non-thinking that goes on. Guerilla warfare on the speak level...

@chuckpo comfortable, yes absolutely but it’s because my ideas are not safe from being challenged and because I can safely challenge the ideas of others. The comfort comes with the mutual respect for good and honest behaviour. This may not have the patronage of FB or Twitter but it’s clearly a platform with way better rules. Kudos to the devs.

Ever go back to read something you wrote and you can't figure out what the hell it means? I'm not sure what y'all are responding to, because that post sucks.

Have we drawn different viewpoints, and if we have, are they hesitant to say anything?

I literally have no idea what that's supposed to say. I'm learning to speak monkey. Seriously, I think something got deleted or added...any ideas on what that's supposed to mean?

I heard some one say (and can't for the life of me remember who) that the people hanging Nazi flags from their balconies and saluting Hitler most often weren't Nazis themselves, but they wanted to virtue signal so as to be left alone by the monsters roaming the streets looking for more scapegoats.

Keeping your mouth shut and going along to get along is called appeasement. It ususally ends disasterously for whoever thinks it the prudent way to go. That said, each and every person has to decide for themselves when enough is enough and if the red line is shiftable when the heat comes down their way. Let's be honest, not everyone has the fortitude to take the blowback. Many will not help the cause until it's a powerful movement. In 1776 only a third of the population support independence from Great Britian...

@Lickspittle yes they did do everything they could to hide and who would blame them. They did not see through a worlds eye view as we can. And am sure, armored vehicles rolling down the streets, and armed, jack booted men, kicking down doors and hauling away the occupants was quite the incentive too. I would probably been hanging out my nazi flags and heil hitlering them, til i turned blue.

@purdyday You're efinately right about the viewpoint. Hindsight is 20/20. But, as a society, they also did not have the principle of individual liberty that America had either. I can't identify a principle they had that would've made fighting the Nazi rise to power worthwhile to them. After in power... yes, formidable message those tanks and jackboots provided.

@Lickspittle I believe it was Hannah Arendt who said something along the lines of, not all Germans were Nazis, but the atrocities could not have happened without their acquiescence.

Current events lead me to wondering if organized religion is one of the major problems we have on this planet. And that raises a big question on the existence of any god or gods.

It seems like rethinking everything might be a real good place to start working on solutions.

Bad religion - misuse and abuse of other people in the name of religion does not mean there is no God. I too dislike "organized religion" in general. But I will always know that God is real. The good thing about my experience with organized religion is that it taught me to recognize there is something greater than man himself. It taught me to at least make an effort to be forgiving and patient with other people. It taught me the concept of right vs wrong. What I do with that as an adult is of my own free will - God has nothing to do with it. But I know God is and every day I hope for his mercy and forgiveness because I know I need it if I am to have any hope at all. @phucneigh

@phucneigh Rethinking is great--IF one has decent exposure to the competing ideologies/religions. Don't try starting from scratch and ignoring what great thinkers have thought and written in the past 2500 years.

Good point. Thank you for clarifying. How should I describe the group of people not-conservatives, though I don't consider myself conservative. Interesting question. Is there a better label for the group I'm trying to access?

@chuckpo That would be found here doing anything but lurking? I'm at a loss as much as you.

But any you find would likely be considered consevative by others. Some Libertarians really bulk at being called conservative, but identify much more closely with conservatives than leftists -- in as far as conservatives want to limit government in word, if not in deed. I'm on the Constitutionalist side of libertarian, while other Libertarians are all out ideological purists. People just don't fit into neat little boxes sometimes...

@chuckpo I will leave you in your quest to find an alternate label. Although, according to some elitist libertarians, it might only be found in the land of IQ

I am very much a friend to anyone who considers himself liberal in the classic sense of liberalism.

@chuckpo I tend to use "progressive". That was the home of most of those who co-opted "liberal". The progressives had worn out there welcome, and FDR rebranded himself as a "liberal" and continued with progressive policies.

@Psykozen Seems that party is constantly wearing out its welcome and rebranding themselves. That anyone falls for it over and over again, says how much they devalue substance, principle and results over branding.

@chuckpo Try progressive, leftist, left of center, or Democrat

@Psykozen, @jneedler Progressive doesn't seem to capture what's happened on the spread out left. The leftists carry the biggest voice by a long mile, and I'm being somewhat generous not to just label everything on that side 'leftism' or extreme activist left. That's not to suggest there's nothing remotely moderate on the left, but y'all have lost your voice--it's been co-opted. I've been saying the reasonable left should stand against the current corrosive mentality on the left. Trust me, if the left came back online, I'd be standing against the extreme voices on the right. I want to be an independent, but I have to stand with the conservatives because there literally is no middle anymore. I was just standing there in the middle and all of the ground around me fell away, and I was standing there on this small pole with like 6 other people standing on poles around me, and then nothing for miles. Hell, a good chunk of the left from a number of years ago would be just left of alt-right today. That's no joke. Things have really changed. So, I still haven't found the language that fits what I see from my perspective. But, my point wasn't about labels. It was to make sure this site isn't just recreating the oppressive culture out there with a different group in 'power'.

@chuckpo I don't see any signs of that happening -- yet.

The closest I've seen is far from that -- someone posting we should be made to use our real names instead of username "handles" because anonymous posters are more likely to be abusive. However, over time that is a clear danger. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. didn't do much point-of-view censorship right out of the gate, but after the following was developed. I remember a conservative site years ago that was big - had republic in the name - you couldn't say you were a libertarian on that site.

@chuckpo

First of all, I never said any of those labels would apply to me. You asked for labels, I gave a few suggestions.

Secondly, your immediate diatribe against people on the left, in response to a simple, 8 word answer to your question, just might be an indicator of why people on the left are not attracted to this site.

@jneedler, I'm glad you felt free to speak your mind!

I think my response far from a 'diatribe'. I guess a more appropriate way to go is to ask you a question. Do you think there are problems on the left--somewhere, and if you do, what are they and how would you solve them? As an independent, which means I identify with your side some, some with the other side--along with some other influences. Curious, did you notice the part where I said if not for the extremism on the left, I'd be (and have) at the Republicans? The part I misspoke was to suggest I wasn't still critical of the far right--I am. There are other criticisms for sure, but they're of a different nature than my criticisms of the left. Start a topic about criticisms of the right, and I'll jump in. I have stuff to say. So, is this another diatribe? I'm trying to get a fix on what you consider to be a diatribe.

@chuckpo Dude, I already told you: "First of all, I never said any of those labels would apply to me."

I'll say it even more explicitly: I'm so far right, I'm practically a Constitutionalist.

@jneedler what are you so mad about? What was the big insult?

@chuckpo Not mad, just a little incredulous that I had to reiterate and break it down like that.

@jneedler still insulting, but you're not mad. Cool.

@chuckpo Why do you need to "label" anyone? That is how many of the problems begin, we are broken into groups, then put against each other.

Maybe we should drop the labels and focus on the ideas/thoughts of everyone?