I came here looking for the punch line, then realized this was not [email protected]

These terms are always contested. People use them with varying definitions without explaining things.

We can make one clear distinction, though. In the US, a democrat is a person who usually votes for the Democratic Party candidates. It really is that simple．

The best thing for you to do is ask about half a dozen issues you care about. That will tell you if the person’s stated values are similar to yours.

The answer is probably that most of them don’t exist.

I’m not actually sure there’s been a time and place where all three of these coexisted, and named ideologies can mean pretty massively different things depending on context.

I’m not familiar with the term “neoclassical liberal”, but in the US:

“Social liberal” means liberal on social issues (people should be able to do what they want, government shouldn’t police morality or sex, against segregation and discrimination) but not on other issues (eg. national defense, economics, criminal law).

Whereas “progressive social Democrat” is in favor of actively correcting social ills, eg. with affirmative action hiring, better public education, comprehensive sex ed; while also holding left-wing economic positions and otherwise falling in line with the DNC.

That’s easy: nothing but the pattern of the doormats they are.

Some examples,

• “Beware Of Dog - It Won’t Bite But It Doesn’t Know That”
• “All Are Welcome Here, Friend - Can We Take Your Jackboots For You?”
• “No One Knows How Good We Never Had It”

… among other timeless gems.

A social liberal is a neoclassical liberal who has been arrested. A neoclassical liberal is a social liberal who got a larger than expected tax bill.

Oh god, this is so way beyond my grasp of politics.

Words have no inherent meaning apart from use. Quibbling over semantics, as if you can finely slice reality, is a waste of time.