Kevin Carson defines vulgar-libertarianism as follows:
Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term “free market” in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get [a] standard boilerplate article… arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because “that’s not how the free market works”— implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of “free market principles.”
Vulgar Anti-Vulgar libertarianism is the view that one is being anti-vulgar while espousing views that marginalize the freedom of entire groups. Take note the recent hit piece on C4SS against Milo Ylannopulos https://c4ss.org/content/47911
One also has to be familiar with past pieces at C4SS against “rape culture” and “white privilege”. While trying to be hip, relevant, and “anti-establishment”, they are in fact pushing the establishment class warfare view. Entire groups of people, i.e men and “whites”, are being marginalized and their grievances are being made irrelevant.
Identity politics are actually very anti-libertarian in that they are collectivist in nature. E.g. Us versus them, you’re either with us or with the terrorists, men are pigs, women are all gold diggers, etc. This is why you’ll see me railing against MRA’s as much as the Social Justice Warriors. They all use the class warfare system of conveying information.
If they want to be successful in their anti-state endeavors, they need to reach out to all of these groups. Not just those currently viewed as loons and on the fringes of society.