He was one of the leading theorists for Empiricism, came up with the concept Tabula Rasa. Funny enough his brand of Empiricism would actually end up being the basis for Hume's Empiricism which is known for being radically skeptical (*chuckles*) about sense perception.
Politically his thought was radical at the time and he did contribute in laying out the principles for classical liberalism, however it was done with the pretense of natural rights. So, he is part of how the concept of the non-aggression principle came into political theory. Basically he was a proto-lolbertarian and classical liberalism was always built to either be an entry into ancapism/minarchism or broader more modernized politics that vaguely use its principles as a starting point but not like a scripture.
Modern conservative politics are a good example of this, they make appeals to many of the basic tenets of classical liberalism (free markets, freedom of speech, small government) but also insert social conservatism that would be against the spirit of those basic classical liberal principles.
In short, Locke could be considered a radical ideologue for his time almost akin to Marx. So Carl either hasn't learned that you branch off from what he was talking about or he is himself a political radical.
