Thanks for the comprehensive answer! Excellent considerations.

Your informal definition ties immediately into the vacuousness of liberals with their lack of principles, and their individualism ("do whatever I want regardless of consequence, producing colonial interest": libs are never radical; they are not principled.

liberals in the state (in bourgeois oligarchic) class court fascists in exploitive interests, with both individualist (self) interest and collectivist interest, by increasing nationalism, for example, in the state apparatus liberals are based. (People can choose to be neither individualist or collectivist: but they fundamentally don't see both as exploitive and utilitarian ("greater good rhetoric"). Liberals also only have short term interests, and no long term understanding of the ideology and its processes - parallel to the corporate daily bottom line. The corporate daily bottom line applies to their personal lives.

then you get fascists in population, and liberals still court them, in self-interest or bourgeois oligarchic state interest, eventually the liberals court fascists in positions of power, pulling themselves further rightward (~because of vacuousness of good principles!) and positions court fascists in positions of power to stay in power/in a bourgeois class.

Tbh, with modern usages, I consider liberal and neoliberal synonymously: neoliberal refers to capitalist and individualist + collectivist interests (the capitalists and politicians) and liberals refer to both neoliberals and liberals in the (working class) general population.

and liberals also have a terrible thing of respectability politics, which they cannot justify when they have no known anti-exploitive principles (with best interests at heart) as the rules of play to work with (to manage expectations with other people) in the liberal sphere/domain.

The opposition to feudal orders of titles and castes deciding one’s status in the eyes of the government in favor of nominal egalitarianism

Lol, you've reminded me of people who say it's bad to speak ill of the dead when I spoke casually about queen liz. - a lot of serious social ire i got! - when I have pointed out she enabled prince andrew to continue sexual assault of people, by paying off her own son's settlement claim! and that she was the sole reason he could get that done. a symptom of how insidious and perverse respectability politics is. These people, anecdotally, many non-monarchists. WHERE'S THE PRINCIPLE! aha

yep, they never see private property as a crucial problem, literally religiously.

and they never respect reappropriating private property by force to create parity of power (political participation, life quality etc.); to emancipate disenfranchised people.

Most people are radlibs. The people that want to make the world better (ego reasons or some compassionate beliefs? I don't know) but it's mostly performative and without substence. They lack any basic principles and they often do savior shit or tokenise who they choose to save. They are lost in bourgeous individualist self-interest, and have no concept of lived experience and of hierarchy/class, or they are pro-hierarchy/class fundamentally.

But all of this is just sidestepping that, while liberal idpol is certainly a problem, I am always weary of people who proactively foreground the characterization of liberal ideological defects as principally connected to “idpol”. There have always been reactionaries within socialist movements who seek to ignore or actively perpetuate violence against marginalized groups that they are not a part of.

Hmm, if it helps, I should have defined what I meant:

1. I criticise toxic identity politics when I see it.
2. I don't criticise other kinds of identity politics.

I also said 'leftist' toxic idpol on the server. Not (neo)liberal, which mischaracterises what I'm referring to:

'leftist' (toxic self-IDed left) is distinctly less vacuous, but more principled - with bizarre principles! they call themselves 'leftist' but ill happily gatekeep the shit out of that term.

Yes, 'identity politics' originally a right wing accusation, but it has its uses. 1) I criticise ideology based on identity (toxic idpol). 2a) I don't criticise the good kinds of idpol at all: 2a) personal is political 2b) political is personal 2c) identifying as a bisexual queer: there is a political reason/material reasonfor my identity with politics

2d) also, crucially, i don't criticise expanding an in-group. in-groups should be expanded to include all sentient life, regardless of intergroup biases like racism, sexism, transphobia, speciesism etc... which produces ideologies that don't value difference but value sameness, producing ideologies of white and human supremacy. i criticise someone pretending to be anti-hierarchical but being pro-hierarchical (being anything but anti-hierarchical) (your paragraph beginning "We also know the limitations involved:" is an excellent example of this. I think my anecdotal example of ~~non-~~monarchists has a relevance in what it's reflective of, which is my accusation against the majority Hexbear users, calling them toxic idpollers.

And, radlib might be a more hard-hitting truthful insult, I'm happy to use it, but maybe what I mean by toxic idpollers has a distinguished definition from radlibs, which feel overlapping and not the same. maybe how i defined it changes your opinion of it. please let me know if it does! what ive described is what ive described here, and not necessarily what you mean, and i noticed when writing up how i define it that what i was calling out is specifically that, and not neoliberalism or neoliberal forces or predatory imperialist tendrils (which is what first comes to mind for neoliberalism).

as an aside, ive noticed some new feelings on the word: it feels like no non-leftist would understand what neoliberal means, and feels a bit circlejerky to say instead of toxic idpol in my original post. do you agree with this impression?

:Care-Comrade: