But at some point, they're not liberals any longer. Care for individuals is one of the defining characteristics of liberals!

Conservatives, with their greater respect for authority, are more likely to rally around strong-willed individuals. But even though the boundary is blurry, we draw a distinction between "authoritarian" and "fascist" and "conservative" because they're different in really critical ways.

Likewise, though I agree that liberals have a tendency to drift into groups-over-individuals, when this goes very far, I just don't think using the same label is a useful way (or a historically accurate way) to parse out the space: we can draw a distinction, for instance, between "liberal" and "marxist", so we can also draw a distinction between liberals and other sorts of illiberal left positions.

It would only be a "no-True-Scotsman" if we drew the boundaries so that only those people who can't be friends after an argument are true liberals. I'm not arguing that! I'm only arguing that the left is not all liberal (in any of the traditional senses of the word), and that the illiberal part is, in my observation, the worst at dialog.