One complicating factor in the vocabulary is how many leftists I've found use "liberals" as a shorthand for "neoliberals" and "neoliberalism" which today are mostly associated with the American right wing. (It's the label for a lot of "free market Capitalism" ideas of the last century or so, generally post-WW2. The "liberal" meaning "free" as in "free market". "Liberal" is partly the shorthand because it does seem silly to label something from WW2 as "neo"/"new".) In that usage of "liberals" it becomes a derision of "liberal Capitalism" in general and the American right wing in specific. (Basically "fiscally liberal" as opposed to something like "socially liberal", which a lot of the left prefers to use terms more like "progressivism", to distinguish. That "fiscally liberal" means basically the same thing today that the right often means by "fiscally conservative", because neoliberalism has been the mostly unchecked status quo since at least the Reagan administration, is its own lovely fractal in why language can be so hard.)

Left/right, liberal/conservative, these axes were often over-simplifying to begin with, and adding in centuries of debates between them doesn't help make the vocabulary any clearer.

Nobody hates american democrats more than actual leftists.

> Glancing through his work, he suggests that identity politics is anti-collective because it's focused on the individual and not the group.

Which could explain why it's coming across as confusing: identity politics ignores individuality and defines people in terms of their groups. It's pro-collective, not anti.

This is a growing sentiment in certain "left" spaces. While I think there is something to be said for silly woke stuff, I strongly dislike this crowd. They're the type throw out slurs for no other reason than to be provocative and subversive. Reminds me a lot of alt right people.