You still are not addressing the merits of the term which still makes your arugment incredibly weak and intellectually lazy. So no, questioning your logical fallacy is not stupidity because so far, all you have done is ad nauseaum assertion.

The term, Regressive Left, is a term that describes a certain people of the left that claim to be liberal, but supports illiberal ideas, tactics, and policies. Those people can include far leftists, but not all Regressive Leftists are far to the left of the political spectrum. In addition, just because a far leftist is not liberal doesn't change the fact that some claim that they are. Your argument is dependent on the claim that zero far leftists claim that they are liberal, but you lack the quantifiable evidence that supports your claim.

You still are not addressing the merits of the term which still makes your arugment incredibly weak and intellectually lazy. So no, questioning your logical fallacy is not stupidity because so far, all you have done is ad nauseaum assertion.

The term, Regressive Left, is a term that describes a certain people of the left that claim to be liberal, but supports illiberal ideas, tactics, and policies. Those people can include far leftists, but not all Regressive Leftists are far to the left of the political spectrum. In addition, just because a far leftist is not liberal doesn't change the fact that some claim that they are. Your argument is dependent on the claim that zero far leftists claim that they are liberal, but you lack the quantifiable evidence that supports your claim.

You can't be far left and liberal at the same time. Liberals support the continuation of capitalism, even if they want more welfare measures and social services, while the far left want its total elimination.

That doesn't change the fact that there are far leftists who claim they espouse liberal values.

That doesn't change the fact that there are far leftists who claim they espouse liberal values.

But you have zero evidence to claim the contrary. All you people do is make up discussion with layers of mud atop of each other. The term has no merit exept in your fantasies, where you can make claims against people all you want and when they start talking back, throw looping constructions, pointless terms and cries of violations of free speech at our heads. And I've insulted enough people on this forum to know that not all truths are easily accepted here, but free speech is a two ways street. You better learn that and grow up.

Prove it. Seriously, stop throwing these politically nonsensical claims around.

Equality is a liberal value. As a matter of fact, our good friend VGPolyglot strives for gender equality, but his proposed ideas to achieve that is illiberal (e.g. equality of outcome policies as opposed to equality of opportunity).

And absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Considering I was the first one to ask you to provide quantifiable evidence and you couldn't, your argument still does not hold up to scrutiny. So tell me to grow up all you like because you're the one who keep falling into the fallacy pitfalls.

Your argument is basically: You hold a certain word as existant and a carrier of meaning -> I dispute this -> you claim I can't back this up statistically (basically you say I don't know everyone, which is true, but the same is true for you) -> I refer to an absolute authority (an official dictionary) -> you reject the authority and go back to square one.

You're intentionally creating a circle of so called fallacy pitfalls which are nothing more then an abolute rejection of everything I brought forward. Of course, nothing I would bring forward helps. I could throw Oxford dictionary's at your head, you'd play with it like the children you are.